Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/07/2010 02:43 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB249 | |
| HB52 | |
| HJR48 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 249-PUBLIC RECORDS/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONS
VICE-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced the consideration of SB 249.
It was heard previously.
2:43:43 PM
MAX HENSLEY, staff to Senator Ellis, explained that the
committee substitute (CS) for SB 249 responds to the concerns
the administration expressed in a memo that was distributed at
the previous hearing.
2:44:07 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt the work draft CS for SB 249,
labeled 26-LS1014\P, as the working document.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI objected for discussion purposes.
MR. HENSLEY said he would walk through the changes the CS makes
and explain how they reflect the concerns that were raised.
In Section 1 on page 2, line 9, the words "electronic record"
were added as part of the list of formats of records. The
definition of an electronic transmission was deleted from that
section because the Department of Law (DOL) found it to be both
too specific and too broad. Subparagraph (B) lists items that
are excluded from the definition of "public record" in other
places and those are included here for consistency. On page 1,
lines 13-14, the phrase "appropriate for preservation" was
deleted and the phrase "required by law to be preserved" was
inserted. The records retention schedule is outlined in Title
40.21 and DOL thought that more specific description should be
preserved.
Section 2 is a new section. It was moved from the Executive
Branch Ethics Act to the Personnel Act in the belief that this
would be a more appropriate place for the prohibition on the use
of private electronic transmission systems. It also rewritten to
add a few exceptions to the rule. The administration felt
strongly that there are places where use of private emails and
other electronic transmissions are appropriate. This mirrors the
policy the bill was attempting to put into statute, he said. In
particular, subsection (c) says that it does not apply to a
public officer who is taking or withholding official action
during a public safety emergency.
2:47:00 PM
MR. HENSLEY said Sections 3 and 7 mirror the changes that are
found in Section 1 with respect to the definition of a public
record. Sections 4, 5, and 6 refer to the fee schedules for
accessing public records. DOL was concerned about the additional
cost burden of lowering this fee schedule and the mutually
agreed solution was to maintain the current fee schedule for the
categories described on page 5, lines 14-16 - for a corporation
other than a news media corporation, for an unduly burdensome
request, or for a commercial request. If a request is determined
to be unduly burdensome, there is language that requires DOL to
work with the requester to move them out of that category. He
noted that DOL's experience is that most excessively large
requests are due to the fact the person making the request may
not understand what they are requesting. But with some guidance,
they can get the needed information without creating unnecessary
work, he said.
Section 7 rewrites AS 40.25.125 to clarify that someone who
impairs a public record is subject to prosecution for a criminal
offense under the two existing tampering with public records
statutes. It was never the sponsor's intent to create new
criminal liability, he said. Section 8 makes the same change to
the definition of public record as in Sections 1 and 3 thereby
providing consistency throughout.
2:49:21 PM
VICE-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI, noting that the administration wasn't
represented at this hearing, asked Mr. Hensley if he and the
sponsor had worked with DOL to address their concerns.
MR. HENSLEY answered yes; the CS represents the points of
agreement between the two offices. Although they didn't resolve
every concern, they did address a majority of the points that
were raised in the letter that was presented to the committee.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI removed his objection and found no further
objection to the adoption of the CS.
2:50:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CS for SB 249, version P, from
committee with individual recommendations, attached zero fiscal
note(s), and the stated intention to find out if there is a
fiscal impact since the fiscal notes hadn't been updated for the
CS.
VICE-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that without objection CSSB
249(JUD) moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|