Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/10/2021 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2021
1:33 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the detention of minors; relating to
minors subject to adult courts; relating to the placement of
minors in adult correctional facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 105(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION OF MINORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/19/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/21 (H) JUD, HSS
03/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
SPONSOR(s): JOHNSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 5AM
03/08/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/08/21 (H) NR: TARR
03/08/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, VANCE,
KAUFMAN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Esq., Public Defender
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the administration, provided
invited testimony in support of HB 105.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the administration provided
explanations of proposed amendments to HB 105.
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff
Representative DeLena Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted in introducing CSHB 3(STA) on
behalf of Representative Johnson, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, introduced CSHB
3(STA).
ERIC WYATT, Information Technology (IT) Director
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about a cyberattack in
2018 and how CSHB 3(STA) may help.
MARK BREUNIG, Chief Information Security Officer
Department of Administration
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony pertaining to CSHB
3(STA).
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 3(STA).
PETER HOUSE, CEO
Deeptree, Inc.
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony pertaining to CSHB
3(STA).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:57 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
Drummond, Snyder, and Claman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 105-DETENTION OF MINORS
1:34:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to the detention of
minors; relating to minors subject to adult courts; relating to
the placement of minors in adult correctional facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that HB 105 is sponsored by the House Rules
Committee by request of the governor and that this is the bill's
second hearing before the committee.
1:34:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony on HB 105. He asked Ms.
Samantha Cherot, Public Defender Agency, to provide perspective
on the bill.
1:35:32 PM
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Esq., Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration, on behalf of the administration,
provided invited testimony in support of HB 105. She stated
that keeping children subject to the auto waiver or
discretionary waiver in Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
facilities until they reach age 18 should result in better
conditions for the impacted children as long as DJJ has the
necessary resources for programming and to care for them. It
should eliminate children being held in segregation while
incarcerated and it should ensure their continued access to
necessary educational services and programming in DJJ's
facilities focused on rehabilitation and which will better
enable these children to develop the necessary skill sets to
reduce recidivism and to foster their continued cognitive
development. This is critical given the fundamental differences
between juvenile and adult minds and that the brain is not fully
formed until one's mid-twenties.
1:36:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed invited testimony.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced he would entertain amendments and stated
for the record that Legislative Legal Services has permission to
make any technical and conforming changes to the bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN handed the gavel to Vice Chair Snyder.
1:37:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 105, labeled 32-
GH1576\A.1, Radford, 3/8/21, which read:
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "AS 47.12.250"
Insert "(k) of this section"
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected.
1:38:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the Division of Juvenile Justice would
explain Amendment 1 given the division requested that he offer
this amendment and a second amendment in coordination with DJJ's
discussions with the court system.
1:38:27 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), on behalf of the administration, said Amendment 1 would
correct a drafting error in HB 105. He drew attention to
Section 2 of the proposed bill, page 4, line 30, which removes
an existing reference in state statute to the holding of
nondelinquent minors under AS 247.12.120 and 247.12.250. He
explained that Amendment 1 would remove another reference to
247.12.250 [on page 5, line 7] in Section 2, and would add a
reference to the process delineated in Section 3, the new
subsection (k) [that would be added to AS 47.10.141]. He
further explained that existing statute mistakenly contains a
reference to how delinquent minors would be held in a process to
hold nondelinquent minors. So, it is circular, and this was
recognized during drafting of the bill. This correction would
just carry on that correction to remove the reference to
delinquency statute for secure holds for nondelinquent minors.
1:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked where the new subsection (k) is
located within the bill.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Section 3 [on page 5] is the new
subsection (k) that describes the process under which a court
must go and consider and the process for the process of holding
nondelinquents temporarily in juvenile justice facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND requested further clarification on where
in the bill the [new subsection (k)] is located.
CHAIR CLAMAN brought attention to Section 2, [page 4, line 24],
which states AS 47.10.141(c). He explained that when it later
says on page 5 "under subsection (k)" it is referencing
47.10.141. He then directed attention to Section 3 [on line 12
of page 5], which states AS 47.10.141, and pointed out that
subsection (k) is right below [beginning on line 13].
1:41:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the practical effect would be
if Amendment 1 failed.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that the practical effect is not great,
but that it is an opportunity to clean up this statute. He said
delinquents are not held under this process - delinquency
statute contains all the process needed for holding delinquent
minors in secure facilities - but it could lead to confusion,
and this is an opportunity to clean it up.
1:42:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection to Amendment 1.
[There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.]
1:43:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 105,
labeled 32-GH1576\A.3, Radford, 3/9/21, which read:
Page 7, line 22:
Delete "A minor shall be transferred"
Insert "The department shall transfer a minor
subject to the provisions of AS 47.12.030(a) or
47.12.100"
Page 7, lines 27 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) If there is no available juvenile detention
facility in a community where a trial is being held or
if a juvenile facility is inappropriate for a minor,
the department may request that the court order, in
the interest of justice, that a minor be held in an
adult correctional facility with or without sight and
sound separation from adult offenders. In making this
decision, the court shall consider"
Page 8, line 12:
Delete "court shall hold"
Insert "department shall request"
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for discussion purposes.
1:43:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested Mr. Davidson explain Amendment 2.
MR. DAVIDSON explained Amendment 2 would add substantive
clarifications that were identified in the review process. He
said the first of the three changes proposed in Amendment 2 is
on page 7, line 22, and clarifies that when the bill says at age
18 minors will be transferred to Department of Corrections (DOC)
custody, it is talking about only the minors that are part of
this section, which are the auto waiver minors and discretionary
waiver minors, not delinquent minors. This part of Amendment 2
clarifies that minors who are in DJJ facilities as part of this
new program, but they are considered adults as part of the adult
court system, will be transferred to DOC custody at age 18. It
does not apply to delinquent minors. Most DJJ jurisdiction ends
at age 18. In some cases, a court can extend that jurisdiction
to age 19 with another court finding, and in some very rare
cases if the minor consents to it, a minor can stay in DJJ
jurisdiction until age 20. This would not apply to minors who
are subject to the auto waiver or discretionary waiver; they
would be transferred to DOC facilities at age 18.
1:45:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that if "A minor shall be
transferred" is deleted and insert "The department shall
transfer a minor subject to the provisions of AS 47.12.030(a) or
47.12.100", the sentence would then read, "The department shall
transfer a minor subject to the provisions of AS 47.12.030(a) or
47.12.100 to a facility operated by the Department of
Corrections when the minor turns 18 years of age." She said
this sentence does not make sense and asked whether this is the
intention for how the language would read.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that the initial draft of the amendment
used the passive voice and Legislative Legal Services provided a
reminder that an active voice needed to be used.
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the new language would be in the active
voice and, in his opinion, reads as a complete sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said it is confusing and suggested the
addition of commas, so that the sentence would read, "The
department shall transfer a minor, subject to the provisions of
AS 47.12.030(a) or 47.12.100, to a facility operated by the
Department of Corrections when the minor turns 18 years of age."
1:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what would be the worst thing that
would happen if this amendment were not to pass.
MR. DAVIDSON advised that this amendment is necessary for the
bill to move forward. He related that several parties said it
was confusing, including DOC that initially wondered how many
minors DJJ would be transferring at age 18 if this bill passed.
He said the intent is only minors that DJJ is holding on behalf
of DOC, not minors that DJJ is holding under delinquency statute
who may be 18 or 19 years old in some cases.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that [the third of the three proposed changes
in Amendment 2] is [to delete] "court shall hold" [and insert]
"department shall request". He said this change recognizes that
generally the court doesn't take these things up on its own, but
they come up when somebody makes a motion. So, this change
would put the responsibility on the department to make the
motion for the court to review the status rather than the court
scheduling a hearing on its own.
1:49:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired whether he is correct in
understanding that as currently drafted, HB 105, Version A,
allows the court to intervene and gives that judge discretion,
but Amendment 2 would remove this discretion.
MR. DAVIDSON replied, "No." He explained that the first change
on page 7, line 22, just clarifies that when talking about
transferring custody to DOC, it is only talking about the waived
youths, not the delinquent youths.
1:50:07 PM
MR. DAVIDSON continued explaining Amendment 2. He said the
second of the three changes is on page 7, lines 27-30. He said
this change clarifies the circumstances that the department
would request the court consider variance from this new
requirement that auto waived minors be held in DJJ facilities.
It is two parts. It currently reads that if there is no
juvenile facility available, which is unclear because there are
juvenile facilities in six communities around the state; but if
a trial is being held in Dillingham, for example, it is wanted
for the court to have the option to choose to have a waived
minor held in the community where the trial is being held. [The
Department of Juvenile Justice] wants to be very specific about
that circumstance. The second circumstance is when a minor is
inappropriate for a juvenile facility and the court must take
into consideration the different circumstances of that minor,
such as age and behaviors, as part of the court's finding. So,
[the second change] clarifies the conditions that the department
would seek a waiver from the new rules, and that the department
is responsible for making that request and that the court is not
responsible for tracking that information.
1:51:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether allowing the department to
make that request results in the legal effect of now denying the
court's ability to do that absent the department's request or if
the department is slow in making a request.
MR. DAVIDSON responded that he and Director Dompeling do not
believe the courts would be intervening to decide where a minor
should be held. He said Ms. Meade [General Counsel, Alaska
Court System] might testify if asked that [the courts] would
prefer the department make the request and then the courts would
make a judgement. But, he continued, [the courts] are not in
the business of deciding without request where a minor should be
held. He recounted that in the previous hearing, DJJ said it
believes that for most of these cases the division will be the
one holding minors subject to the automatic waiver and the
discretionary waiver, and that these variances would not be
something DJJ would be seeking on a regular basis. The division
is equipped to handle most of these cases, and it would be very
rare that DJJ would seek a variance.
1:53:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested Mr. Davidson explain the third
change proposed in Amendment 2 and to state what the practical
consequences would be if [the amendment fails].
MR. DAVIDSON reviewed the third of the three changes proposed in
Amendment 2, a change that would be made on page 8, line 12. He
explained that this change is like the one aspect of the second
change which emphasizes the department's responsibility to
request a continuance of that decision by the court that a minor
can be held in an adult facility. He related that this is
something the court system requested of DJJ in terms of
amendment to clarify that the court system is not going to be
tracking where minors in DOC custody are being held, but if
[DJJ] wants to have a variance under this process [DJJ] would
request it of the court. It's an extension of the previous
section where the department will request of the court to make a
continuation of this finding.
1:55:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection to Amendment 2.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
VICE CHAIR SNYDER returned the gavel to Chair Claman.
1:56:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 105, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 105(JUD) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
1:56:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the definition of
'disaster.'" [Before the committee was CSHB 3(STA).]
1:57:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:57 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
2:00:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that this is the first hearing of CSHB 3(STA)
in this committee.
2:01:02 PM
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff, Representative DeLena Johnson,
Alaska State Legislature, assisted in introducing CSHB 3(STA) on
behalf of Representative Johnson, prime sponsor. He stated that
Alaska statute is vague about whether a cyberattack or
cyberthreat could elicit an emergency declaration. He explained
that HB 3 would add cybersecurity to the definition of a
disaster to update Alaska's laws, give clarity, and if
necessary, use resources to act if there is a widespread and
imminent threat. There is an alarming rate of cyberthreat
throughout the world and nation, he pointed out. Not long ago
the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough was shut down after a
cyberattack, creating severe disruptions in the day-to-day
service and operation of the local government. The City of
Valdez was the target of a ransomware attack, and many funds
were spent to again be able to access the city's information.
The states of Louisiana, Florida, and Colorado declared an
emergency after a cyberattack disrupted most of their government
operations not too long ago.
2:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, introduced CSHB 3(STA). She stated that
cybersecurity needs to be added to the list of reasons for an
emergency declaration. She explained that a disaster
declaration would provide for disaster relief funds, to apply
for federal funds and resources that might not otherwise be
readily available, for disaster preparedness planning, and to
provide for intervention when the security of Alaska residents
has been compromised. She deferred to Mr. Cordero-Giorgana to
continue discussing the bill.
2:03:47 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA reiterated that CSHB 3(STA) would add
cybersecurity attacks and threats to the definition of a
disaster. He said the bill would add [subparagraph] (F) to AS
[26.23.900(2)] within the general provisions of the Alaska
Disaster Act. He read from the proposed subparagraph, which
read as follows:
(F) a cybersecurity attack that affects critical
infrastructure in the state, an information system
owned or operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, information that is stored
on, processed by, or transmitted on an information
system owned or operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, or a credible threat of an
imminent cybersecurity attack or cybersecurity
vulnerability that the commissioner of administration
or commissioner's designee certifies to the governor
has a high probability of occurring in the near
future; the certification must be based on specific
information that critical infrastructure in the state,
an information system owned or operated by the state
or a political subdivision of the state, or
information that is stored on, processed by, or
transmitted on an information system owned or operated
by the state or a political subdivision of the state
may be affected;
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA noted that the changes in the committee
substitute before the committee, CSHB 3(STA) added the words
"political subdivision" to page 2, lines 19 and 21. He
explained that this was done for clarity to ensure that boroughs
and local governments were not left out.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA stressed that the bill is necessary given
that nowadays it is heard in the news about foreign governments
trying to hack U.S. computer systems, which includes U.S.
electric grids, hospitals, airports, and services that provide
energy or critical infrastructure. He allowed that the meaning
of critical infrastructure is currently open to interpretation
but advised that the duty to make that definition rests with the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, but the department
was unable to come before the committee today.
2:07:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested a definition of "cybersecurity"
and noted that the term is not defined here. He further asked
whether it is defined elsewhere in statute or whether something
would be used to reference the meaning of the term.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that it would be technical
definitions by professionals for cybersecurity and cyberthreat.
Usually, he continued, they are defined as events that result in
data exposure, data loss, outright alteration, or impact to a
service. He stated that there is no exact definition in statute
and that cybersecurity, like technology, keeps changing on a
day-to-day basis so that today's definition may [be different
from a future definition].
2:08:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she appreciates the bill's intent.
She said she understands from Mr. Cordero-Giorgana's testimony
that a political subdivision of the state would be a borough or
municipality. She noted that school districts and the
University of Alaska have massive databases and asked whether
they would be considered political subdivisions of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON qualified she is speaking from experience
and not immediate research, but her understanding is that a
school district would fall under a borough. She related that
the boroughs in Alaska were originally created in 1964 to
oversee and dispense money to the school districts. So, she
continued, the political subdivision in that instance would be a
borough. The unorganized borough would be under the state and
under the state's purview. The University of Alaska is not
identified as a political subdivision of the state and it's not
an incorporated borough or municipality or city, so her belief
is that it would fall under State of Alaska equipment. She
offered to get back to the committee with details if requested.
2:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that the computer systems of the
Anchorage School District (ASD) are totally separate from those
of the Municipality of Anchorage. Given there have been
arguments over the last 20 years about whether they should be
combined she said she isn't sure the aforementioned would apply
to a school district that is ultimately governed by that borough
or municipality which used to be a borough and a city. She said
she thinks Representative Johnson is covering the regional
educational attendance areas (REAAs) in the unorganized borough.
She added that the state gives the school districts roughly $1.2
billion to spend, and if [the districts' systems] were breached
in a cybersecurity attack, then a lot of services would be at
risk.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, responding to Chair Claman, requested
clarity on what is included in the list of political
subdivisions. She said if it doesn't cover school districts and
the university, she would like to find a way to cover them.
2:12:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he is cautious about increasing
emergency powers because he is concerned about abuse. He
requested an explanation on how an emergency declaration would
help the state or political subdivision resolve the damage of a
security breach and how it would be different with an emergency
declaration as opposed to how the state operates now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that a widespread and life-
threatening example would be a compromise of the power grid
during the winter, given the grid is run by computers. This
example would be an occasion where additional funds and help
from federal experts would potentially be needed for resolution.
2:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opened invited testimony on CSHB 3(STA).
2:14:44 PM
ERIC WYATT, Information Technology (IT) Director, Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, related that in 2018 the borough was the target
of a cyberattack by four different organizations rather than a
single attacker. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
analysis found that the attackers were four nation states by
means of some of the worst viruses. In the attack, one of them
got in and then sold it to the other organizations. The
borough's data was stolen, and its systems disrupted, then one
of the groups demanded ransom. The attack brought down all the
borough's information systems, completely cutting off the
borough from all Internet services and all the data that it
continuously used day to day to conduct borough business.
MR. WYATT said the effect on operations within the borough was
most notably on the borough's fire and emergency medical service
(EMS) systems. Also affected were operations and maintenance
for taking care of roads and solid waste, as well as finances
and legal every aspect of the borough was taken down. When
all that was shut off, all the people who used the borough's
information system - telephones, computers, and so forth - were
dead in the water. The magnitude was that everything was shut
down for quite some time. The borough was able to slowly bring
back services, getting back to about 95 percent capacity in
about 60 days.
MR. WYATT explained that to recover at the time without an
emergency declaration, the borough had to bring its emergency
funds to bear. But what was needed most to recover the systems
at the time was additional manpower, so the borough used its
emergency funds to hire additional resources to come help,
including Peter House of Deeptree, Inc. Several other
organizations also volunteered their help, including Mark
Breunig, Chief Information Security Officer, Department of
Administration. The borough's needs for recovery at the time
were monetary resources and skilled manpower to get its
operations back online. Mr. Wyatt stressed that the ability to
declare a disaster and form a team of experts as volunteers or
paid manpower to help recover is absolutely critical. The
borough used nearly $2.5 million in emergency funding for its
initial recovery and then more was spent on continued recovery.
MR. WYATT pointed out that the same week the Mat-Su Borough was
hit, the City of Valdez was hit by mostly the same groups, same
viruses, and same tactics. It is heard all the time about other
states and other cities [being hit] and there have been other
attacks in the state of Alaska as well. So, he emphasized, the
ability to come to the aid of the organization and plus-up the
manpower and resources to recover is absolutely vital, and the
borough would like to participate.
MR. WYATT further noted that the borough's critical
infrastructure its electric grid, telecommunications, gas
lines all run on these same kinds of systems. Therefore, the
effects from a cyberattack are greatly damaging and include
power and gas outages.
2:20:56 PM
MARK BREUNIG, Chief Information Security Officer, Department of
Administration, stated that the National Guard has a national
mandate for cyber-capability to be created in states, but
currently, without the language under CSHB 3(STA), there is no
legal standing to do it, and the state would not be able to
avail itself of the existing resources.
2:22:30 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified in support of CSHB 3(STA) and emphasized the
importance of cybersecurity to Alaska's local governments,
school districts, and state agencies. He spoke about risks of
destabilization and opined that "including this in the
definition of state disaster" is imperative.
2:23:47 PM
PETER HOUSE, CEO, Deeptree, Inc., said Deeptree, Inc. is a firm
that specializes in cybersecurity. He mentioned the zeitgeist
and a solar wind attack that resulted in significant
consequences for the federal government, fortune 500 companies,
and organizations in Alaska. He talked about an attack on e-
mail servers that hit approximately 30,000 American
organizations and double that worldwide, which has been
attributed largely to the Chinese. He said there have been high
visibility attacks showing a higher level of aggression, both
from criminal organizations and nation state adversaries. He
related that in the fourth quarter of 2020, cyber software moved
from a soft market to a hard market, which mean that "the
portfolio for the insurance company is under pressure," and it
usually results in rate increases. He said the attribution by
insurance companies for this change is that the number of cyber
attacks and the total size of the claim are both increasing
substantially, with a 20 to 40 percent rate increase expected
across different cyber insurance carriers countrywide.
MR. HOUSE stated that in general there is a higher level of
aggression. He gave as an example from Yankee Buckshot wherein,
using off-the-shelf, publicly downloadable tools, the U.S.
Department of Defense "attacked itself" to test its defenses and
was able to get onto its classified network. He said there is
challenge in working with these complex systems; sometimes
attackers can "make it in past the border" and "reap a
significant amount of damage."
MR. HOUSE addressed Representative Kurka's question regarding
the benefit of allowing a declaration of emergency. He gave a
scenario wherein assets are required to hold evidence for law
enforcement or insurance. That is data or logs that need to be
tendered over to the organization from a hard drive. He said
those systems cost $20,000 and higher. If the systems are set
aside for evidence retention, they cannot be used for the
restoration of services or to clean or sanitize the systems.
The result is a need for double or triple the amount of storage
capacity to run the organization day to day. He explained, "By
opening up the degrees of freedom, either through funds or other
forms of response, there's an ability for an organization to get
back on its feet quicker than if they were to try to ... use a
slow methodology of moving a little bit at a time, which then
stretches out the rate of recovery to a much longer period of
time."
MR. HOUSE said Alaska is a smaller state, with fewer than a
million people, and "this type of line of work is very
specialized and difficult." He estimated there are 50-100
people in Alaska who are qualified to do digital forensics and
incident response, and he pointed out that it would be difficult
for them to respond [to an emergency situation] because "a lot
of them will be fighting their own fires." Therefore, he
emphasized that the ability to pull in contractors and resources
from Outside is essential. He said he believes the language of
CSHB 3(STA) would open up that degree of freedom, "in addition
to what Mr. Breunig indicated." He noted that when he worked
with Mr. Breunig and Mr. Wyatt on the incident with the Mat-Su
Borough, the expansion of capability from the emergency funds
had a positive impact; there was a wave of momentum that was
beneficial.
2:29:45 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN, in response to Chair Claman's request that he
address Representative Drummond's question about political
subdivisions, offered the definition of political subdivision,
which appears under AS 26.23.900(7), as follows:
(7) "political subdivision" means
(A) a municipality;
(B) an unincorporated village; or
(C) another unit of local government;
MR. ANDREASSEN said it is the understanding of the Alaska
Municipal League that school districts would be covered under
political subdivision of the state. He said school districts
are either a subdivision of a municipality or are the
responsibility of the Department of Education and Early
Development. He offered his understanding that the University
of Alaska is considered a political subdivision, "but separately
under state law."
2:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referenced definitions found under AS
39.90.140, [which states that "public body" includes "an officer
or agency of" the federal government, state, and political
subdivision - subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively],
and she read that which is included under "political
subdivision", in paragraph (4), subparagraph (C), sub-
subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii), which read:
(i) a municipality;
(ii) a school district; and
(iii) a regional educational attendance area;
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the University of Alaska and
the Alaska Railroad are not included under [subparagraph (C)].
[They are listed subsequently in subparagraphs (D) and (E), of
paragraph (4), regarding "public body".]
2:33:12 PM
MR. BREUNIG, in response to the same question, said it is not a
topic he can address.
2:33:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that during a recent Finance
subcommittee meeting, Mr. Breunig had spoken about a recent
cyberattack and mentioned a type of incident command being
established under the Department of Administration for quick
response. She referenced language in CSHB 3(STA), on page 2,
[on lines 5 and 6], regarding "consultation with the
commissioner of public safety or a designee of the commissioner
of public safety", and she asked whether that wording fits the
organized structure Mr. Breunig is establishing within the
Department of Administration regarding cybersecurity and meets
the requires of statute.
2:34:46 PM
MR. BREUNIG responded that the "incident command structure"
(ICS) put out through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), is part of an emergency management program and a
standard framework that all federal agencies use. The language
in the bill would not change that, he indicated. In response to
a request from Representative Vance, he spoke about work with
the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs on an [incident
response] structure, which currently is not capable of handling
a large-scale incident.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said CSHB 3(STA) speaks to this issue, and
she encouraged efforts to speed up response to an incident.
2:38:36 PM
MR. BREUNIG recalled he had been talking about a solar wind
incident during the Finance subcommittee testimony and how speed
is of the essence when responding. He said it took departments
24 hours to report back whether they had vulnerable software, at
which point security was able to "lock that down" and determine
there had been no compromise. However, he emphasized that in
cyber terms, "24 hours is an eternity." He posited that CSHB
3(STA) is critical, because it would bring the right people
together to build the "speed to response."
2:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for a definition of "imminent
cybersecurity attack" and whether there exists a metric of
probably of attack.
2:40:54 PM
MR. BREUNIG replied that when there is imminent threat, there
would be an alert from the federal Cybersecurity Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) regarding a known attack. State security
would watch out for it. That in itself is not a disaster, but
if the threat "got in" and caused damage, then it would be a
disaster. Regarding Microsoft, he said security knew early on
that it was coming and was "able to take practice steps" to
mitigate the risk, which he said is another example of imminent
threat. In response to a follow-up question, he mentioned a
"denial of service" attack in which someone floods a state
network segment with malicious traffic "in an attempt to
overwhelm it and take it down."
2:42:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said it sounds like cybersecurity attacks
are happening all the time in various degrees. He directed
attention to language in Section 1 of CSHB 3(STA), on page 1,
line 4, which gives a definition of disaster, including its
causes. He offered his understanding that "we're talking about
widespread damage of property," not just "one department had
some computers fried."
2:44:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her understanding that the
concern is that there could be ongoing declarations of disaster.
She deferred to her staff to address the topic further.
2:45:23 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA proffered that "imminent" is a matter of
timing and "widespread" is a matter of geography and whether an
issue can be contained. When talking about a fire, earthquake,
or flood, the consideration is "the amount of resources that
would need to be used to be able to achieve the containment
goal." He said DMVA will create emergency plans for each
category listed in the Act and make recommendations as to what
would be considered widespread and imminent.
2:47:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA indicated that the language in the proposed
legislation should be added, but observed that "a lot of the
context in which we're talking about this" is found in
subparagraph (D), [on page 2], regarding "enemy or terrorist
attack or a credible threat of imminent enemy or terrorist
attack in or against the state". He offered his understanding
that there had been a legal opinion as to "why this wouldn't
apply under (D)." He remarked that "all these examples we're
talking about ... seem to be foreign actors."
2:48:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Johnson, offered his
interpretation that Representative Kurka was reflecting that
subparagraph (D) doesn't seem to be cybersecurity-related and
perhaps wanted to know how the two issues are addressed when
determining whether an emergency has occurred.
2:49:21 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA, at the request of the bill sponsor,
addressed the question. He said the separation was done at the
recommendation of the bill drafter in Legislative Legal Services
to avoid confusion.
2:49:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that CSHB 3(STA) speaks
specifically to disaster; "emergency" is not addressed. She
gave an example of a disaster being the landslide that recently
occurred in Haines, Alaska. She said the governor declared a
disaster in the Haines area, but it was not a statewide
emergency.
2:50:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the definition of
cybersecurity.
2:51:20 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said he did not have a definition and
deferred to Mr. Breunig.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that it is common for courts to use the
dictionary for commonly used terms if those terms are not
defined in statute.
2:52:08 PM
MR. BREUNIG defined cybersecurity as "any protection used to
prevent cyber-attacks."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is familiar with definition, and
it makes sense to him. He continued:
But in this case we're talking about a cybersecurity
attack, and so if we're using tools to prevent
attacks, but then we're ... adding the word "attack"
on them, I'm a little confused as what that [emphasis
on "that"] means.
MR. BREUNIG responded he thinks the intent is that it would be
an attack against [Alaska's] cybersecurity - against the systems
and tools that the state has to protect itself.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for confirmation that what is being
discussed is an attack where "someone's trying to overcome some
type of security" as opposed to "a run-of-the-mill fiber
attack."
MR. BREUNIG answered, "Yes, I would agree."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the previously discussed
subparagraph (D), which addresses enemy or terrorist attack,
points to a definition of "attack" existing in [AS 26.20.200],
and since that definition does not fit what is being discussed
in the cyber realm, he suggested a definition may be necessary
in subparagraph (F).
MR. BREUNIG said he concurs with the bill sponsor and her staff
that the intent is to clarify. In subparagraph (D), "enemy" and
"terrorist attack" traditionally relate to military-related
attacks, not cyber-attacks, which are specifically addressed
under subparagraph (F), which allows the emergency operation
center to bring resources to bear in regard to cyberattacks
rather than other "traditional forms of disaster or emergency
attack that are already identified."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that subparagraph (F) is proposed
new language. He said a cyberattack would be, for example,
somebody getting into his home computer; a cybersecurity attack
would be on a larger scale.
MR. BREUNIG concurred.
2:56:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced a memorandum ("memo") from
[Megan Wallace of] Legislative Legal Services [to the bill
sponsor and staff, dated 2/10/20 and included in the committee
packet], to [subparagraph (C), which lists equipment failure as
one of the causes of a "disaster" and read as follows]:
(C) equipment failure, if the failure is not
a predictably frequent or recurring event or
preventable by adequate equipment maintenance or
operation;
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his understanding that the memo
talks about "why ... [subparagraph] (C), equipment failure, ...
may not be adequate, and why this bill might be needed for that
reason." He asked to what extent it is the sponsor's intent "to
predicate the cybersecurity attacks we're talking about on
intentionality." He continued:
Because certainly, ... if we're focusing on
intentionality, then an IT tech who spills coffee and
destroys a server probably wouldn't be captured in the
intent that we're talking about here.
2:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that intentionality must have
credible background. If [the attack] is imminent and
widespread, as determined by the commissioner or commissioner's
designee, he/she would determine that it was a credible threat.
She added, "The intentionality of maybe mindreading some would
not fall into that category."
2:58:13 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said he was not sure he understood
Representative Eastman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that [subparagraphs] (A), (B),
(C), and (E) address disasters that are not man-made and
intentional. He questioned whether it is important to "tie it
to that intentionality," as is being done in [subparagraph] (F)
or to be more focused on the impact. He asked, "Is there a
reason that we're making it narrower than ... just a larger
impact type of definition?"
2:59:52 PM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA noted that the legislature removed
"manmade" from the disaster Act, which caused ambiguity as to
whether cybersecurity qualified under the Act. He continued:
If a widespread system failure is the result of
another cause that is not manmade, or in this case an
attack or a threat, it actually would probably fall
into one of the other categories. So, in the case,
for example, of an earthquake: a system goes down,
but it's really the result of an earthquake, not
necessarily a cybersecurity attack. And so, if I'm
understanding correctly, this would actually clear
authority specifically to those type of items."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it is important to make a
distinction between "those manmade actions which are intentional
and which are accidental." For example, he said an installation
of "a security patch" that cause a major outage "wouldn't
qualify here" because it is not a cybersecurity attack, even
though it may have the same result if someone had done it
intentionally.
MR. CORDERO responded that that would be a cyber vulnerability,
and he indicated that was addressed in another part of
[subparagraph] (F). He said there are so many definitions that
could be included in the bill that would make it lengthy, for
example, for the following terms: cyberattacks, cyber
incidents, cyberthreats, major threats, minor threats, and
primary targets. He stated, "We're just trying to make it clear
that cybersecurity counts; give it an overview, and then it's up
to the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs to come up
with ... plans."
3:02:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that a lot of this comes back to the size
and cost of what has happened.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSHB 3(STA) was held over.
3:04:13 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 105 v. A 2.19.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal Letter 2.18.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Supporting Document - ABADA & AMHB Letter 3.5.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Testimony - Received as of 3.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Additional Document - Memo from DJJ to HJUD 3.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 2.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 3 v. G 3.8.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 2.18.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Legal Memo 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - Alaska Health Department Reports Data Breach The Seattle Times 6.28.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - DHSS Cyber Attack Impacts More Than 100,000 Alaska Households 1.23.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - How One Alaskan Borough Survived A Cyber Attack CitiesSpeak 10.1.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - MSBD Press Release Mat-Su Declares Disaster for Cyber Attack 7.31.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - Pipeline Article Alaska Public Media 3.14.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - CISA Critical Infrastructure 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Fiscal Note DOA-OIT 2.21.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Fiscal Note GOV-OMB 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 3 Testimony - Received as of 2.22.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |