Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
02/13/2012 10:30 AM Senate RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB311 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 311- REPORTS TO APOC
10:36:00 AM
CHAIR ELLIS announced HB 311 to be up for consideration [CSHB
311(STA) AM was before the committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, sponsor of HB 311, said this bill
clarifies campaign disclosure report filing requirements to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). He stated that it is
important for the state to maintain transparency and full
disclosure to maintain the credibility of the election process.
He said this is a bi-partisan effort and does five significant
things: first it preserves the statutory mandate that campaign
finance disclosures be submitted electronically as the default.
It also provides that the APOC shall always accept some version
of an electronic spreadsheet or data file uploaded to them in
satisfaction of electronic reporting requirements. The bill also
requires that any changes in the format of the prescribed
submission be done between election cycles and not in the middle
of them. Nothing prohibits voluntary earlier compliance.
The bill also provides a specific exception to the general
premise that says all reports should be filed electronically.
The exception is for people who do not own a computer or have
access to reliable high speed Internet at their residence. This
provision was designed out of fairness and to make certain that
no Alaskan, no matter where they reside in the state or their
technical skill set, will be denied an equal opportunity to run
for public office. The last thing it does is allow continued
paper filing in a transition period for anyone who chooses to
file on paper for the current election cycle only. He said HB
311 is designed to be retroactive specifically to be sure
activities related to the current election cycle are
encompassed.
10:38:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated it is the intent of this bill to
allow anyone in the current campaign cycle to submit their
disclosures for the duration of this campaign cycle via an Excel
spreadsheet in the form and format that was acceptable when they
began their campaign. It is also the intent that anyone be
allowed to file paper reports through the end of this campaign
cycle. The last reporting date is February 15, 2013. He also
noted a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to explain the changes to the fines
for errors or mistakes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained that he is not qualified to
discuss changes in the fines, but if one fails to file in
compliance with APOC's regulatory authority (although they could
be filing in explicit compliance with state statute), the fine
is $500/day.
CHAIR ELLIS asked him to note the impending deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER answered for candidates involved in the
current campaign cycle who have been conducting campaign
activities and raising and spending funds within the purview of
the law, their first report is due to APOC in two days, on the
15th of this month. If those candidates are going to be
protected, they have two days to pass the bill. He emphasized
that this bill does not in any way change the substance of the
disclosures they must make to APOC. It would only affect the
manner of reporting and only for candidates, not groups or
political action committees.
10:41:11 AM
SENATOR MEYER remarked that legislators cannot use state
computers to do these reports or have staff assist in the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that was correct. No one who
currently has an elected office and is serving in Juneau at this
time may use the state-owned equipment that is at their disposal
to conduct legislative business. APOC testified that they would
make a computer available in their offices between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., but a question was raised in the House
State Affairs Committee if that was even ethically permissible
considering that is also a state asset.
SENATOR MEYER said if you didn't happen to bring your own laptop
or maybe don't even have one, you would perhaps have no means of
doing these reports in a timely fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER concurred and said the folks at the APOC
told him to go to the public library.
SENATOR ELLIS noted that the executive director of APOC was on
line and available for questions.
10:42:58 AM
SENATOR HOFFMAN said many individuals have problems with the
current the filing system and asked if those problems will be
corrected before next years and if the program would be made
more user friendly.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that testimony from the APOC in
the House State Affairs Committee indicated that the commission
was satisfied with its program at this time. But there have been
conflicting reports from people who have been asked or required
to use that program. He further directed that question to the
APOC.
10:44:04 AM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked Mr. Dauphinais to comment on the four
different pages: the initial page, the summary page, the expense
page and the income page that have no drop down box. It's very
cumbersome to get to the back page and there was no way to print
one page at a time. He said many individuals feel the program
could be improved to make it more user friendly and asked if
that would that take place between now and the requirement at
the end of February 2013.
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), answered
that every time they get feedback from someone they try to deal
with it as expeditiously as possible. In some cases they have
been able to deal with issues within a couple of hours and they
intend to continue that.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if they would have a drop down box so some
of the pages could be bypassed to get to the last one, the
income and expense report.
MR. DAUPHINAIS said he will speak to his programmers and get
back to him on that.
SENATOR MEYER said he has a volunteer that helps with the report
and while he finally got it submitted, he had tried before and
the APOC wasn't receiving it.
He also said that before session he knew the APOC was working on
many issues and one of them was the accumulation totals. The old
system would let you know if the $500 amount was exceeded, but
he didn't see that feature in the new system. That is a concern
because accepting over $500 could result in a fine.
Also, the total amount accepted from out-of-state contributors
used to get flagged if it went over the $5,000 limit and that
feature doesn't work now either.
10:47:36 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that part of the problem is as
information is input into the program, the name of a contributor
needs to be put in precisely the same way every time for it the
cumulative feature to work correctly. If there is a slight
difference in the name of the contributor he will be treated as
two different people.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he agrees with the direction of automating,
but if you look at the penalties versus the complexity of the
system and the possible need for a more user friendly layout,
"they don't equal out" and that concerns him. Under the last
example, if you put in Bert Stedman as a contributor and the
next time you put in Bert K. Stedman, his address is the same,
but his name isn't.
This software does not coordinate with the bank statements
either, he said. The software reports when the contribution
arrived and the bank reports when the deposit went in. If you
put 10 contributions in one deposit, it's difficult to go back
under an audit unless you have a completely separate system to
show when a check hit the bank and what deposit it was in. And
if you run two separate systems it is very easy to negate an
entry or make a data error.
10:50:06 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN suggested putting a work group together
consisting of two or three Senate and House members who are
familiar with computers and automation work as an advisory group
to the people that are writing the software, because clearly
there is a disconnect between the software that is being imposed
and how legislators actually function and stay in compliance -
which everybody is trying to do.
SENATOR HOFFMAN recommended a deposit system that allows for 30
or so contributors in a batch instead of having to total them
out at the end of the report and figure out where the problems
are.
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that they are zeroing in on the
legislative response, but this has implications far beyond them
to city council members, school board members and people who are
appointed to boards and commissions. His other concern was that
being faced with the possibility of a $500 fine every day for
any mistakes you make discourages people from running for public
office. He wanted it clarified who this applies to overall and
to know what changes have occurred in the penalties.
10:53:02 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS replied that this bill applies to statewide and
municipal candidates only. People being appointed to boards and
commissions need a public official financial disclosure and that
is not covered by this bill. Regarding fines, AS 15.13.390 on
civil penalties has not changed. He said he didn't think this
would discourage people, because the reporting requirements and
deadlines hadn't changed. The fines had not changed either.
In fact, he said the latest amendment to the bill opens up many
of the waivers or exemptions that were granted to municipal
candidates in municipalities with populations under 15,000 for
people who don't own a computer or potentially choose not to
have Internet in their home.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he was saying this does not apply to
municipal candidates who receive or spend funds for campaigns.
MR. DAUPHINAIS replied no, this does apply to municipal
candidates, the difference being in terms of reporting. He
explained that people in municipalities of under 15,000 people
have always been able to report via paper rather than
electronically, although if they chose to do so electronically
he would be happy.
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to cover the penalties.
MR. DAUPHINAIS replied that penalties are covered under AS
15.13.390. For those who fail to register [indisc.] or fail to
file a properly completed and certified report within the time
required, that individual is subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $50/day for each day of delinquency and it continues
as determined by the commission subject to the right of appeal
in Superior Court. A person who fails to file a properly
completed and certified report - for 7 day and 24 hour reports -
within the time required is subject to a penalty of not more
than $500/day for each day of delinquency and that continues as
determined by the commission subject to right of appeal in
Superior Court.
A person who violates a provision of this chapter, except a
provision requiring registration or filing of a report within
the time required as otherwise specified is subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $50/day for each day the violation
continues as determined by the commission subject to the right
of appeal in Superior Court.
10:56:44 AM
CHAIR ELLIS found no further comments or questions for the
sponsor and thanked him. He said the Rules Committee had
prepared a committee substitute to address some of the concerns
expressed by Senate leadership.
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt SCS CSHB 311(RLS), \X [version
27-LS1233\X].
CHAIR ELLIS objected for committee discussion and asked Senator
Stevens to review the proposed changes.
SENATOR STEVENS explained that the CS replaces section 4, which
allows candidates that are currently in office to file their
APOC reports in the same manner in which they were allowed to
when they originally filed for office.
He commented that it has been very difficult dealing with APOC
not just for himself, but also for several other members, and he
wanted to pass some of the difficulties on. He said, "APOC has
just simply not been very forthcoming about helping us adapt to
this new system." For example, he attended a workshop a couple
of weeks ago and expressed a concern that legislators had said
to him that they had just learned about the online requirement
and had arrived in Juneau without their computers (Senator
Meyer's issue). So should they be sent back home so they can go
to their home and file this properly or should another solution
be found? One of the solutions suggested was to go to the
library with all of their checks, deposits and expenses and do
them in public somewhere. But that to him didn't seem the best
way to handle it.
So, he asked the young APOC attorney who led the workshop
discussion why legislators couldn't use the computers in their
office (there are rules against that, but it's the one time they
are down here without their computers). She said, "I will get
back to you on that." But she never got back to him; in fact he
hasn't heard any response.
SENATOR STEVENS said a second thing he had a problem with was
getting a blank form so he could do a draft. He called APOC,
could not talk to Mr. Dauphinais, but talked to his deputy who
said they hadn't thought about people needing a draft and asked
him to check back next week to see if was available. Finally,
Senator Stevens said he found a kindly secretary at APOC who did
send a blank form to him - the idea being that you do need a
draft to make sure it is done properly.
11:00:26 AM
He repeated his concern that this could have a daunting impact
on legislators. He said is on his 12th year in the legislature
and has always mailed these things in and has always typed them
out so they are easily readable and easily scan-able and
available the next day to the public. It concerned him that he
would have to go online and do a report.
SENATOR STEVENS quipped that he considered this the "Geezer
Amendment" and that people shouldn't have to hire professionals
to do this for them as some do. He concluded that he had several
concerns: the fact that the attorneys said they would get back
to him and didn't, the fact that he asked for the forms they
didn't have and as far as he knows they still don't have and the
fact that this would have an impact on people who are
questioning whether they should continue running when they are
facing a fine of such magnitude.
CHAIR ELLIS removed to his objection finding no further
objections said SCS CSHB 311(RLS) was adopted.
CHAIR ELLIS found no further comments and asked for a motion.
11:02:01 AM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report SCS CSHB 311 (RLS), version \X,
from committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|