Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/03/2020 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 3, 2020
9:03 a.m.
9:03:48 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Sponsor; Kris Curtis,
Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of Legislative Audit;
Crystal Koeneman, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson;
Sylvan Robb, Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
HB 121 REPEAL STATE AGENCY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
HB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 209 ESTABLISH DEP'T OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
HB 209 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the agenda for the morning.
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to performance reviews and audits of
state agencies, the University of Alaska, and the
Alaska Court System; and providing for an effective
date."
9:04:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill that would repeal the
statutory requirement for state agency performance audits.
He read from a prepared statement:
• House Bill 121 repeals the statutory obligation for
performance review audits.
• In 2013, the House and Senate passed HB 30 that set
out to audit all agencies
• 4 audits have been completed (3 Agencies):
o Corrections
o Education
o Commission on Post-Secondary Education
o Health & Social Services
• 15 Agencies Audits remain on the books until the
program is set to end in 2023
• Funding requests have been denied for the last 4
fiscal years
• This takes it out of the statutes
Representative Thompson elaborated that the bill would
remove the statutory obligation because it had not been
used. The change would mean the statute would be taken out
of the books and removed from the budget. He introduced his
staff Crystal Koeneman who was available for questions.
9:06:21 AM
Representative Josephson agreed that if the work was not
being done, it was not being done. He asked if anything had
been learned with the audits that had been completed since
the passage of the statute in 2016.
Representative Thompson replied that the completed reviews
mentioned had received recommendations from an auditor
located in the Lower 48. He explained that the auditor's
recommendations did not fit with Alaska and none of the
recommendations had been acted upon. He explained that it
had been determined that the state could not afford to
continue the reviews without receiving results that could
be utilized.
Representative Wool asked if the audits were always
intended to be outsourced to an outside agency. He wondered
if there had been intent for the work to be done
internally.
Representative Thompson replied that he was uncertain. He
deferred to Ms. Curtis with the Division of Legislative
Audit.
Representative Wool surmised that the Division of
Legislative Audit was busy doing its own audits. He
believed auditing an agency like the Department of Health
and Social Services would be a heavy lift.
9:08:07 AM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, clarified that the reviews were not
audits, but performance reviews. She elaborated that audits
communicated a level of assurance in accordance with
criteria. The performance reviews had been facilitated by
the Division of Legislative Audit and had been conducted by
consultants who were experts in the field. The intent had
been to review all state departments over a ten-year
period. She reported that three departments had been
reviewed. The intent of the reviews was to determine
whether agencies were performing well and to identify what
they could do better. She believed there was a bit of an
expectation gap that the reviews would be the mode to
reduce the budget, in anticipation that in the future there
would be serious budget cuts.
Ms. Curtis continued that the statute effective date began
on July 1, 2013 before the budget had decreased. She
explained that the reviews were not structured to be a
mechanism to reduce the budget. She detailed that as part
of the reviews, agencies were required to provide a list of
10 percent budget cuts. She expounded that as part of the
review, the consultant was tasked with determining whether
the list of cuts was reasonable in line with their review
of the department. There was a budget implication to the
process, but it was primarily to determine what the
departments could do in order to do their job better.
Ms. Curtis elaborated that the reports for the Department
of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) had been fairly well received by
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A). The
reports were available on the web and were an excellent
tool for reviewing a department, especially DOC and DEED.
The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) was the
other review that had been conducted and she agreed that it
had been a big lift. The Division of Legislative Audit had
been responsible for helping to create the scope of the
performance reviews and for hiring the contractor. She
reported that the contractor had come out in strong support
of Medicaid expansion, which had not been well received by
the committee.
Ms. Curtis reported that the reviews had been defunded
effective FY 16. She believed it was very difficult to
review departments when there was so much change underway.
She explained that by the time a review was started to the
time it was completed "you'd be looking at a different
animal." She believed it was likely not the best climate to
conduct the reviews until there was some stability.
9:11:07 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the reviews were called for with
the realization that the Division of Legislative Audit had
its hands full and the reviews would need to be done by
someone else to dig more deeply into things.
Ms. Curtis relayed that the concept of the reviews had been
underway for years and the legislation was passed when she
had started her current position. She believed the idea was
modeled after the Texas Sunset Commission - that it was an
important function of government to examine itself and make
sure it was operating as efficiently and effectively as
possible. She explained that it took experts in the field.
She detailed that even if the work was done by the Division
of Legislative Audit, the agency would have to hire experts
in the correctional industry or education to do the deep
dive.
Representative Wool thought it sounded like there was some
value to the reviews, especially in determining how an
agency was performing. He knew there had been studies done
for the University to identify where it could be doing
better and where it was spending too much money. He asked
if the reviews had not been done primarily due to cost. He
asked if it had always been the intent to outsource the
reviews and if the Division of Legislative Audit had been
supportive of the concept.
Ms. Curtis replied that she was willing to do whatever the
legislature directed. She highlighted that the reviews
required significant procurement and three additional staff
that had nothing to do with the audit function. She had
carved the staff out to the side and had interacted with
the leader of the group. She relayed that it had resulted
in a lot of extra work on her shoulders; however, it was
her perspective that if the legislature wanted the Division
of Legislative Audit to do performance reviews, it would do
them.
Ms. Curtis highlighted that how the reviews would be used
had not been well thought out and needed to be tweaked. She
pointed out that if people did not know whether the reviews
had been done and they had not been utilized, something was
wrong with the process. She had been asked in the past how
the process could be improved, and she had notes on what
could be improved from four years back when the process had
stopped. She believed there would have to be a rewrite of
the process to make it effective. She recommended starting
from scratch. She was always supportive of reviews, and
whether it was on the legislature's priority list of what
it wanted to spend funds on was a question for policy
makers.
9:15:07 AM
Representative LeBon thought back to his "banking days." He
explained that banks were subject to numerous audits,
examinations, and reviews. In the banking world there were
internal reviews of programs, the most common was in
lending in order for the bank to know it was making good
credit decisions. Banks also had internal and external
audit functions. Additionally, the FDIC [Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation] visited banks to do examinations. He
elaborated that the FDIC looked at reviews and internal and
external audits to arrive at a conclusion on the soundness
of the bank and its operations. He asked if the state
auditors looked at performance reviews and made a
conclusion about their work when they did an audit.
Ms. Curtis replied that the reviews were not exactly
helpful for the purposes of the Division of Legislative
Audit. She explained that the division was the
external/independent financial auditor. The executive
branch had an internal audit function for approximately 15
years. She did not know how many states had no internal
audit function. She clarified that the focus of the reviews
did not have much to do with the financial audit. She
elaborated that if the reviews were available, the division
would look to them as a source when it did periodic
performance audits.
9:16:53 AM
Representative Josephson asked if the state used to provide
or pay for an executive internal audit function. He asked
if the work would be redundant to work performed by the
Division of Legislative Audit.
Ms. Curtis replied that there had been an internal audit
function under the governor's office, and she believed it
had been eliminated under the former Knowles
administration. She believed there had been eight positions
and some of the functions had been moved to the Division of
Finance. There was an existing state single audit
requirement function. She believed they had done internal
reviews on a whole range of topics.
Representative Wool remarked on the fact that an outside
group had been paid to review the department and had made
recommendations, which had not been well received. He
surmised the recommendations had not gone along with the
presumption of the group, yet [Medicaid expansion] had
taken place.
Ms. Curtis replied that one of the requirements of the
performance reviews was quantifying their fiscal impact.
The DHSS review produced over $2 million in net savings to
the state. She noted it was the only one. She reported that
the review had cost over $1 million to conduct. She stated
that hired consultants typically recommended additional
studies. She stated it was necessary to keep an eye on
consultants who were usually very passionate about the
field they were in and were most likely supportive of "that
type of thing." It was her opinion that the review had not
been well received by the committee or legislature at the
time.
9:19:27 AM
Co-Chair Johnston referenced performance measures in the
budget. She asked if the performance measures had been
evaluated as part of the process.
Ms. Curtis replied that obtaining the performance measures
had been part of the process. She had not seen much value
in the performance measures, and they had not been key to
any of the reviews.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that she had a good friend who had
been one of the initiators of the performance measures.
Ms. Curtis replied that in theory it was great thing, but
she had not seen any impact.
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Curtis' statement
that the state had saved money through the DHSS review. He
asked if it was due to SB 74 [Medicaid reform legislation
passed in 2016]. He asked how the $2 million in savings
materialized.
Ms. Curtis would have to double check, but she believed the
savings had to do with recommendations under the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). The savings had something to do
with the federal reimbursement. She elaborated that OCS
could change its procedures related to documenting and
timing and possibly qualify for increased federal
reimbursement.
9:20:44 AM
Representative Knopp looked at line 1 of paragraph 2 in the
sponsor statement. He noted that the sponsor statement
specified that four audits had been completed, but it only
listed three departments. He asked what the fourth
department was.
Ms. Curtis replied that there had been two reviews for DEED
- one had been done on the department as a whole and the
other had been done on the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE).
Co-Chair Johnston requested to hear the sectional analysis.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
complied. She highlighted a list of repealers in committee
members' packets (copy on file). She noted that because the
bill only listed repealers, she believed it would be more
advantageous to provide the list of repealers instead of a
sectional analysis. Sections 24.20.231(7), Section
24.20.271(2), and Section 24.20.311(b) were all conforming
language changes that removed references to the performance
reviews. Section 44.66.020 included agency programs that
set out the agency performance audits. Section 44.66.040
included the extensive list of the duties of the review
team. Section 44.66.070(2) defined the review team.
Representative Josephson stated that when he arrived in the
legislature in 2013, he would have thought the legislature
funded things it said it was going to fund. He asked if in
around 2016 the item had been in the budget's adjusted
base, but it had been removed.
Ms. Koeneman replied that the budget request had been put
forward by LB&A. When Legislative Council reviewed the
budgets, it had made the determination to not move forward
with that. There had been partial funding in 2016 for FY
17, but Legislative Council had denied the increment in FY
18 through FY 21.
Representative Josephson referenced the language "every
year, the legislative audit division shall ensure..." [Sec.
44.66.020(a)]. He was thinking of the Permanent Fund
Dividend debate and the senior deduction and other things
discussed by Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins. He
highlighted that the legislature was the appropriating
body.
Ms. Curtis clarified that Legislative Council did not
review the LB&A budget. She explained the appropriation was
separate. She detailed that the funding had been cut in the
House Finance Committee process. She relayed that because
the item was in her statutes, she was required to request
an increment annually. She reported that the request was
$1.8 million in the current year. She noted it was a
substantial amount of funding.
9:24:28 AM
Representative Wool looked at the list of agencies outlined
in statute that were to be reviewed in specific years. He
observed that the first three departments on the list had
been completed and then the reviews had stopped at the
Office of the Governor, agencies of the executive
[legislative] branch, and the Court System in 2017. He
asked for verification that $1.8 million [the figure cited
for FY 21 by Ms. Curtis] would pay for one year. He
surmised it would depend on the year. He observed that
based on the statutory list it would be one, two, or three
audits depending on what was called for in a particular
calendar year.
Ms. Curtis agreed.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked about the anticipated
savings from the legislation that would discontinue the
performance reviews.
Representative Thompson replied that the budget request was
$1.8 million in FY 21. The increment had been removed from
the budget, the same as it had been in the past three
years. He highlighted that the increment had not been
funded for four years. He questioned why it should be
included in statute and annually listed in the budget.
Representative Wool appreciated Ms. Curtis's statement that
a new approach should be made. He thought there was some
value in conducting reviews of agencies that were receiving
$300 million per year. He speculated that if it cost $1
million to $2 million, the state may end up saving $5
million. He continued there were definitely savings to be
had and people want to cut budgets all of the time, but
there were ways to cut and ways to take a deep dive to
discover how to operate more efficiently. He remarked that
sometimes it was necessary to spend money to save money. He
thought a new approach sounded reasonable.
9:27:10 AM
Co-Chair Johnston OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
HB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to public finance; creating the
Department of Management and Budget; transferring the
duties of the office of management and budget to the
Department of Management and Budget; and providing for
an effective date."
9:27:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill and reviewed its purpose
with a prepared statement:
• House Bill 209 transfers the Office of Management and
Budget to a freestanding budget agency.
• Currently OMB is located within the Governor's office
• As an agency within the executive branch, the
commissioner of the Department of Management and
Budget will be subject to legislative confirmation and
their salary determined by the State Officer
Compensation Commission.
• This will also allow for additional legislative
oversight during the budgetary process
• There are 11 other states that require legislative
confirmation for the state's chief budget official
• 12 other states that have a freestanding budget agency
• Since FY11 the annual salary of the Director has
increased from $136.4 to $194.7
• Total UGF spend is from $192.5 to $277.2 with benefits
Representative Thompson explained that the bill was lengthy
because it had to hit so many agencies on the books. He
detailed that the bill basically just changed the words
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Department of
Management and Budget. He shared that his staff was
available for any questions.
9:29:51 AM
Representative LeBon referenced Representative Thompson's
mention of significant history and background information.
He asked if the idea had been churning in the background
for a while.
Representative Thompson replied in the negative. He
explained that the idea had arisen from the situation in
the previous year. The bill originated from the idea that
the legislature should have more oversight and knowledge of
who was coming into the OMB [director] position.
Representative Wool asked if there were hurdles or costs
associated with establishing a new department aside from
the salary considerations and confirmation [of a director].
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
replied that there were about eight fiscal notes in
committee members' bill packets (copy on file). She
confirmed there were additional minimal costs associated
with setting up an independent agency including shared
services, procurement, and information technology. She
would provide additional information when fiscal notes were
reviewed.
Representative Knopp was interested in the fiscal notes. He
remarked that there were numerous notes that were all
substantial. He hoped to hear an in depth review of each of
the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Johnston shared her intention to hear a sectional
analysis followed by a review of the fiscal notes.
9:32:37 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the costs would be ongoing or one
time only.
Ms. Koeneman replied that the hope was once things were
underway the change would be budget neutral, meaning the
current costs associated with OMB under the Office of the
Governor would be those costs moving forward as a
standalone agency. She noted that the legislature would
have that power through the budgetary process.
Representative Tilton asked whether the bill would result
in any diminishment of the separation of powers between the
executive and legislative branches.
Ms. Koeneman answered that the bill did not change any of
OMB's powers and duties. The statutes currently in place
were contained in the legislation, the only difference was
the change from the word "office" to "department" and from
"director" to "commissioner." The services OMB currently
provided would remain the same.
9:34:17 AM
Co-Chair Johnston requested to hear the sectional analysis.
Ms. Koeneman complied. Sections 1 through 30 included
conforming language changing the Office of Management and
Budget to the Department of Management and Budget.
Additionally, the sections updated the words "office" to
"department" and "director" to "commissioner." She read
from the sectional (copy on file):
Section 31: AS 44.17.005. Offices and departments
Adding the "Department of Management and Budget" to
the list of principal offices and departments.
Section 32: Proposed new Chapter AS 44.22.010.
Chapter 22. Department of Management and Budget (p.
33)
Sec. 44.22.010. Commissioner of management and budget
Establishes the principal executive officer of the
Department of Management and Budget is the
commissioner of management and budget.
Sec. 44.22.020. Powers and duties of the commissioner.
Outlines the duties of the commissioner of management
and budget. (Identical language to current powers and
duties of the director under AS 44.19.144)
Ms. Koeneman noted that Section 44.22.020 was included in
the sections being repealed at the end of the bill. She
remarked the language was conforming. She continued to
review the sectional analysis:
Sec. 44.22.030. Powers and duties of the department.
Outlines the duties of the department of management
and budget. (Identical language to current powers and
duties of the department under AS 44.19.145)
Sec. 44.22.040. Internal audit records. Requires the
department to keep a complete file of audit reports.
(Identical language to current internal audit records
under AS 44.19.147)
Sec. 44.22.050. Definitions. Provides a definition for
the commissioner and department of management and
budget.
Section 33-35: Conforming language changing the office
of management and budget to the Department of
Management and Budget; and updating "office" to
"department".
Section 36: Repeals statutes related to the "office"
of management and budget.
Section 37: Transitional language that allows for the
transfer of information and documents from the "office
to the "department".
Ms. Koeneman explained that if there were any current suits
against OMB, they would continue until they were worked out
through the transition. She concluded the sectional
analysis:
Section 38: Provides a July 1, 2020 effective date.
9:37:16 AM
Representative Merrick asked if OMB had taken a position on
the legislation.
Ms. Koeneman replied that she did not believe so.
Representative Knopp looked at Section 32 and asked if it
was the intent that the commissioner would also be the OMB
director. Alternatively, he wondered if there would be a
commissioner and director.
Ms. Koeneman answered that the intention was the positions
currently with OMB - the director and staff currently
listed in OMB's personal service expenditure - would be the
staff for the office. She remarked that the fiscal notes
had additional positions listed, but the bill sponsor's
intention was to transfer the office as it currently stood
to a standalone department. She relayed it had been her
hope to only modify the language in statute; however, with
the constitution, it had not been so easy.
Representative Wool asked if the sponsor foresaw there
being a deputy commissioner. He pointed out that typically
there was at least one deputy commissioner position
alongside a commissioner position. He asked if the parallel
position existed, such as assistant director. He wondered
if there would be a straight transfer over.
Ms. Koeneman responded not necessarily. She detailed that
in name the position would probably be a deputy
commissioner but depending on how a governor set up their
OMB there was sometimes a deputy director. She clarified it
was the sponsor's intention that the comparable level
position would be the deputy.
9:39:49 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked to hear a review of the fiscal
notes.
SYLVAN ROBB, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, began by noting that the
State of Alaska had not created a new department from whole
cloth since prior to 1975. She noted that OMB had run out
of time to continue the historical research. She reviewed
the eight fiscal notes. There were not OMB component
numbers to use as reference because the component numbers
did not exist. She detailed that the proposed new
Department of Management and Budget would be comprised of
four appropriations with seven allocations. The first
fiscal note [Identifier HB209-GOV-DIA-03-01-20] created a
division of internal audit. She noted the item had been
defunded for many years; however, because it was contained
in the statute of the bill, OMB had operated under the
assumption there would be interest in restarting the
function. She shared that the last time a position had been
filled was in 2012 when there had been one position. She
relayed that the position had been taken off the books a
number of years ago as part of a cleanup as it had been
unfilled for many years.
9:42:03 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz wanted to ensure he was looking at the
right fiscal note. He asked Ms. Robb to provide the
identifier at the top [left] of the fiscal note.
Ms. Robb replied that the identifier was HB209-GOV-DIA-03-
02-20.
Representative Knopp believed Ms. Curtis and Ms. Robb had
both stated that the internal audit program had been
discontinued. He asked for verification that Ms. Robb had
stated that OMB had included the program in the fiscal
notes because it was specified in statute and OMB assumed
the legislature wanted to go back to the program.
Ms. Robb replied that the statute was contained in HB 209
and it was the assumption that the bill sponsor intended
the functions to resume.
Representative Knopp asked for verification there were
currently no other internal auditors in any of the state
departments.
Ms. Robb answered that within the Department of
Administration the Division of Finance performed single
audit work. She added that OMB no longer performed audit
work.
9:43:38 AM
Representative LeBon asked if any bargaining units touched
OMB staffing wise. Alternatively, he asked if OMB was
completely outside the bargaining unit influence.
Ms. Robb answered that under the current structure where
OMB was under the governor's office, all staff positions
were fully exempt. If the office was changed to a
department some of the positions may change to classified.
9:44:27 AM
Ms. Robb moved to the next fiscal note, Identifier HB209-
GOV-DBA-03-02-20. She noted the note pertained to the
Department of Management and Budget, budget analysis. She
detailed that the division represented the majority of OMB
as it currently existed. The note included current budget
analysts, a chief budget analyst, and the addition of an
assistant (a position OMB had until recently).
9:45:12 AM
Ms. Robb looked at the third fiscal note for Administrative
Services, Identifier GOV-DAS-03-02-20. Currently OMB was
part of the governor's office and the administrative
services covered by the fiscal note were services provided
to OMB as part of the governor's office. For example, OMB
was able to take advantage of governor's office procurement
staff, human resources staff, and the finance officer and
administrative services directors. She explained that if
OMB was turned into a department, the positions would need
to be created in order to provide the services to the
department.
Representative Wool asked for verification the note
included all new positions.
Ms. Robb agreed. She explained that currently OMB received
the services from the governor's office.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for a breakdown of the types of
services she was referring to. He asked for further detail
on the five positions.
Ms. Robb answered that the positions would provide services
currently received from the governor's office. She
elaborated that the positions included an administrative
services director (as in other departments), a finance
officer (it was always necessary to have two people in the
financial positions because people cannot certify each
other's work), a budget manager, a procurement specialist,
and a human resources consultant. She noted OMB's
anticipation that in the outyears one of the positions
would no longer be needed as the current consolidation
efforts for procurement and human resources came to
fruition.
9:47:45 AM
Co-Chair Johnston asked members to hold their questions
until the end of the fiscal note review. She reminded
members that floor session began at 10:00 a.m.
Ms. Robb continued with the fourth fiscal note, Identifier
HB209-GOV-CO for administrative services and the
commissioner's office. She explained that the creation of a
new department would require a commissioner's office. She
detailed that three of the staff shown on the fiscal note
were existing staff. She referenced an earlier question and
relayed that there was a deputy director at OMB and it was
the assumption that person would become the deputy
commissioner for the new department. She detailed that
current Director Neil Steininger had an assistant who would
continue and there would be a special assistant to act as
the legislative liaison and perform duties normally filled
by that role.
Ms. Robb moved to the fifth fiscal note, Identifier HB209-
GOV-PP for policy and planning. The note included three
existing OMB policy positions that would continue under the
new department.
9:49:19 AM
Ms. Robb reviewed the sixth fiscal note, Identifier HB209-
GOV-SDC for policy and planning, statewide data
clearinghouse. The note reflected the current OMB
programmer who maintained the Alaska Budget System where
all budgeting for the state occurred. The note also
included the addition of a research analyst in anticipation
of the internal audit and the collection of additional data
(in order to make the best use of the data).
9:50:09 AM
Ms. Robb turned to the seventh fiscal note, Identifier
HB209-GOV-ASD for policy and planning and centralized
administrative services directors. The note did not reflect
a change. She highlighted that the administrative services
directors had been moved into OMB by Executive Order 307
[in 2019 under the Dunleavy administration]. The fiscal
note reflected the administrative services directors would
continue to be a part of the new department.
Ms. Robb turned to the eighth fiscal note, OMB Component
Number 1244. The note represented the removal of funding
for OMB.
Co-Chair Johnston OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
9:51:45 AM
Representative Wool referenced the salaries of the
commissioner determined by the salary compensation
commission. He noted the policy planner position was listed
as a salary range 27 at $229,000. He asked for verification
the salary was considerably more than the commissioner's
salary. He asked if the numbers were standard.
Ms. Koeneman replied that it was not uncommon in other
departments to have the commissioner's topped out at
$135,000 set by the Salary Compensation Commission and to
have a director level position at a range 27 with
additional pay steps to outrank the commissioner in terms
of pay.
Representative Knopp asked for verification that Ms. Robb
had reported that a new state department had not been
created since 1974.
Ms. Robb replied that OMB had struggled to locate the last
time a department had been created. They had researched
back to 1975 before running out of time.
Representative Knopp thought it was an interesting
conversation. He believed it clearly showed how the state
managed and staffed its departments. He thought it was a
great review and opportunity to talk about the internal
audits that were not done and the research analysis for
internal auditors. He opined it was a good conversation to
consider how business was being conducted in the state's
departments.
HB 209 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the schedule for the afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT
9:54:03 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 121 Repealer List 2.4.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 209 Budget Processes in the States - Spring 2015 Tables 2-5-20.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |
| HB 209 FY11-20 OMB PS ED 2-5-20.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |
| HB 209 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.28.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |
| HB 209 Sponsor Statement 1.28.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |