03/04/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: | |
| HB83 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2015
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION
WILLIAM McCORD
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to collecting information about civil
litigation by the Alaska Judicial Council; repealing Rule
41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 511(c) and
(e), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 83(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to the disclosure of financial information by
persons who are subject to the Legislative Ethics Act and by
certain public officers, public employees, and candidates for
public office."
- MOVED CSHB 65(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: JUDICIAL COUNCIL: CIVIL LITIGATION INFO
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
01/28/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/15 (H) JUD
02/06/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/13/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/15 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/15 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/02/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/04/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: LEG./PUB. OFFICIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HAWKER
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) STA, JUD
01/27/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/27/15 (H) Heard & Held
01/27/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/10/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/12/15>
02/12/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/12/15 (H) Moved CSHB 65(STA) Out of Committee
02/12/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/15 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP
02/13/15 (H) DP: TALERICO, STUTES, KELLER,
GRUENBERG, KREISS-TOMKINS, LYNN
03/04/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
WILLIAM LEE MCCORD, Appointee
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the position of the Alaska
Public Offices Commission, discussed his qualifications and
answered questions.
CLARK BICKFORD, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a brief overview of CSHB 83, on
behalf of prime sponsor Representative LeDoux.
SUZANNE DIPETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 83, answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of CSHB 65.
JULIE LUCKY, Staff
Representative Mike Hawker
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSHB 65, as
staff to the prime sponsor, Representative Mike Hawker.
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the Alaska
Public Offices Commission amendments to CSHB 65.
KATHY WASSERMAN
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding municipalities and CSHB
65.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:07 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Lynn,
Claman, Foster, Keller, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING:
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION
1:05:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX brought before the committee the appointment of
William McCord to the position of the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC). [Packet contains biographical information on
the appointee.]
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the committee it would be hearing the
qualification of this individual today and recommending that his
name be referred to the Joint House and Senate for
consideration. Chair LeDoux reminded the committee that its job
is only to review the history and qualifications of this man.
She stated there will be no vote for or against his confirmation
in this committee. She highlighted that committee members
should feel free to ask questions as they arrive, but to bear in
mind that the committee is not voting on his qualifications,
merely reviewing them.
1:06:51 PM
WILLIAM LEE MCCORD said he recently moved to Haines and is
assuming everyone has the summary of his past experience. He
said he would like to open the discussion to questions.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there is anything he would like to
highlight about his qualifications.
1:07:43 PM
MR. McCORD said he has a varied background with broad ranges of
experience. Therefore, he remarked, it helps him relate to
people, and to process quite readily, due to his experience.
Also, he stated, partially due to his formal training he has
skills in being an objective observer and analyst in how to
determine that fairness is injected into any process.
1:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Mr. McCord's application
regarding conflict of interest, wherein he had answered "Yes,"
to the question "Would you or your family be affected
financially by decisions to be made by the commission for which
you are applying." Representative Keller asked that he explain
his answer.
MR. McCORD said, with regard to the particular phrase
Representative Keller referred to, Mr. McCord has a "No," typed
on his copy of his application and related that possibly the
committee received a different printout.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked "that answers the question."
1:09:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if he or his family could be
affected financially by decisions made by the commission and
further asked that Mr. McCord explain the potential benefit, [if
his answer is "yes."]
MR. McCORD stated that response is very different from his copy.
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that the committee's copy read [as
Representative Keller stated].
1:11:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether there is anything about
serving on the APOC that will cause financial hardship or
difficulty on him or his family in any manner, other than time
spent going to meetings.
MR. McCORD responded "There will be no hardship."
1:12:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN then questioned whether there would be
financial consequences from serving on the commission.
1:12:31 PM
MR. McCORD responded "I do not anticipate any."
1:12:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Mr. McCord saw potential
benefit of a non-financial manner, political, or otherwise.
MR. McCORD said that he is so new to Alaska it would be
difficult for him to envision anything in that manner. He
remarked that most Libertarians do not have an advantage of
anything. "Seriously," he related, he does not anticipate any
particular advantage, and he is not participating in any
campaigns or any effort to reap the benefits of something like
this. He further related that this is five year commitment and
he takes it quite seriously.
1:14:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how long Mr. McCord has lived in Alaska.
MR. McCORD responded "since May of this year," and said he is a
year-round resident.
1:14:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that Mr. McCord spent a lot of time in
Heidelberg Germany and asked how he happened to be in Germany.
MR. McCORD advised he was a military dependent.
1:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what typically would come before the
APOC for review.
MR. McCORD testified that a complaint might be filed about
misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN further asked what type of complaints might
someone in the public file.
MR. McCORD responded that failure to report would be one
example, or failure to meet the deadline for reporting,
misreporting - which would be researched by the staff and they
would document dates, times and amounts involved in terms of
penalties.
1:17:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered as a member of the Libertarian party,
whether he believes the functions of the APOC are an appropriate
governmental function.
MR. McCORD answered that he uses an analogy in that when an
individual is swimming in a stream, the individual swims in the
best and most fluid manner to swim. He further answered there
are certain things people have to deal with, such as two-way
streets in that he drives on the right side of the street like
everyone else. He described the APOC as an agency that is a
necessary part of our living and working together in a political
environment, and he accepts it as a Libertarian in spite of some
of the philosophies people may have heard.
1:19:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said that under the APOC rules, which are made by
the legislature and the APOC enforces, people are only allowed
to donate $500 maximum per candidate. In the event someone has
donated more, it is an APOC violation. She asked whether that
is something appropriate for the government to have legislated.
She further asked that if he does not think it is appropriate,
could he still enforce it.
MR. McCORD responded that as a member of the commission it would
not be his decision to make, as it is for the legislature to
make. He described his job on the APOC as to decide with the
other members, as a collective body, whether or not there is an
actual violation, and whether the penalty is fair under the
rules. He said he is not to judge whether or not the rule is
acceptable as that is for the legislature.
1:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned Mr. McCord's motivation for
applying for the position on the APOC.
MR. McCORD said he has a long history of public service and this
unexpected opportunity "shows up" for a "Libertarian only" to be
on the [commission]. He related that his contacts told him he
should submit his name, so he did as this would be a good way
for him to be immediately involved in what is happening in
Alaska.
1:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that when a member renders a decision
against a person to whom a complaint has been filed it is
supposed to be a non-partisan decision. He opined that it does
not matter which party the person is a member, it matters only
what the person may, or may not have done. Partisanship must be
kept out of it, he related.
MR. McCORD answered "Precisely."
1:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered whether he initially applied to
APOC or just for the Professional Teaching Practices Commission
(PTPC).
MR. McCORD said he applied for both.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further quiered what compelled him to
apply for the APOC.
MR. McCORD responded that the State of Washington has an almost
identical history in terms of public disclosure. He opined that
based on his experience, he felt he could do a good job on the
APOC, in as much as he is somewhat familiar with the disclosure
requirements in Washington.
1:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Mr. McCord's application
and his community service and stated [his application] does not
relate to anything like the APOC. He asked if he had any
experience in anything political or similar to the APOC.
MR. McCORD remarked that he had not as an appointee, but he has
experience regarding the consideration of issues. He asked if
Representative Gruenberg was asking him whether he was ever
involved in anything that required enforcement. Mr. McCord
asked if he was restating that correctly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied "Please continue."
MR. McCORD responded that he has not been directly involved in
any enforcement type of role.
1:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if he had ever run for
office, or been involved in a campaign, or had any dealing with
the equivalent agency in Washington, or elsewhere.
MR. McCORD advised he ran for office in the State of Washington.
1:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the details of his campaign.
MR. McCORD stated he has gone through the petitioning process in
order to run for office, the filing fee process, the public
announcement at the convention, and reporting of campaign
contributions.
1:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked which office he ran for.
MR. McCORD related that he ran for Congress and subsequently for
the state legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether he had any dealings with
the equivalent agency in Washington in the capacity of a
witness, or lodging a complaint, or a complaint lodged against
him.
1:26:06 PM
MR. McCORD replied "No, I have not."
1:26:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Mr. McCord arrived in Alaska
in May of 2014, and asked how long after that did he submit his
application.
MR. McCORD responded that he submitted his application
electronically on 12/29/14.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered if someone asked him to submit
his application to the APOC.
MR. McCORD replied that it was suggested by the existing party
members as it became clear from the election how things were
going to stack up in terms of openings on the APOC. He noted
that the two parties with the most votes would be eligible.
1:27:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his resume that indicates he
was appointed to two Washington commissions by Governor Dan
Evens, in 1970 and asked the name of the two commissions.
MR. McCORD answered that one commission selected and interviewed
candidates for the Department of Ecology. The second
commission, Special Levy Study Commission, dealt with
determining methods to finance the public school system.
1:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether during either of the
commissions he was a member of the Libertarian Party.
MR. McCORD noted that at that time there was no Libertarian
Party as it was initially started in 1971, and wasn't on the
ballot until 1972.
1:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN assumed Mr. McCord became a member of the
Libertarian party after it became an official party in
Washington.
MR. McCORD answered in the affirmative.
1:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN ask for clarification regarding his
service on the REI Board, and further asked if it is the company
that sells outdoor gear.
MR. McCORD said "I'm glad you recognized it."
1:29:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN quiered whether his Libertarian views
interfered with his ability to function effectively on that
board.
MR. McCORD asked what Representative Claman meant by
"interfered."
1:30:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected as a point of order that it is
not an appropriate question and if the person had identified
another party it would be same response from Representative
Keller.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that Representative Keller's
objection is well considered. He advised he was following up on
the prior questions of Chair LeDoux with regard to whether
Libertarians suggest that government has no role, and whether he
agrees or disagrees with that perspective.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the point is well taken.
1:31:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that Mr. McCord worked as a
fisheries observer in Alaska and surmised that job required Mr.
McCord to assess whether someone is following the law. He
quiered whether he could perform his duties consistent with what
the law required.
MR. McCORD responded in the affirmative and said he served under
the National Marines Fisheries Service and technically was an
observer on a foreign fishing vessel by treaty arrangement. He
explained that under the treaty arrangement, the observer is
similar to a junior officer and reported the catch on a weekly
basis. The observer was given different codes in order to stand
back in case there was some aberration in the catch. The U.S.
Coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service might then
arrange some type of boarding for an inspection, if necessary,
he related.
1:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what brought Mr. McCord to Alaska from
State of Washington.
MR. McCORD responded he wanted to live here for personal
reasons.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
1:33:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to forward the name of William Lee
McCord to the joint session of the House and Senate for
confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion.
1:34:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Representative Gruenberg that this is not a
vote on whether the committee thinks he is qualified or think he
is not qualified. She expressed there are no grounds for
discussion as everyone has their own view.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he did not know where
there was an allowable objection and if so, what the allowable
grounds would be because he has never been in the situation
where a member has objected.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated "Let's not make this the first time."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection.
[There being no further objection, the confirmation was
advanced.]
1:35:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:35 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.
CHAIR LEDOUX passed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller.
1:37:44 PM
HB 83-JUDICIAL COUNCIL: CIVIL LITIGATION INFO
1:37:49 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 83, "An Act relating to collecting
information about civil litigation by the Alaska Judicial
Council; repealing Rule 41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rules 511(c) and (e), Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSHB 83 (JUD), adopted 2/20/2015.]
1:38:17 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER advised that public testimony is closed and it
will not be reopened unless there is a request to testify.
1:38:56 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:39:32 PM
CLARK BICKFORD, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, said CSHB 83 would repeal a 1997 law that
requires civil litigation reports to the Alaska Judicial
Council. He reiterated from his previous testimony that the law
has been widely ignored, ineffective, and not supported by the
legal community. He referred to the last hearing wherein there
was a question regarding what would happen to the funds given to
the Alaska Judicial Council for [reviewing the data] and
preparing reports, and advised that Susanne Dipietro is on line
to address that question.
1:40:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opened public testimony.
1:41:11 PM
SUZANNE DIPETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, stated that her research indicates there
was an amount of money put in the Alaska Judicial Council's base
budget, when the law was passed in 1997 or 1998, to provide the
resources in order to perform the work. She explained the funds
are available to be returned if the Alaska Judicial Council is
no longer required to do the work.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised that it is out of the purview of
the bill, and he is sure the information will go forward to the
House Finance Committee.
1:42:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered that the money was put into the Alaska
Judicial Council budget in 1997, or 1998, and one report has
been prepared.
MS. DIPIETRO advised three reports have been prepared.
1:42:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised it has not been a yearly report, and
questioned how much money is left since the yearly reports have
not been prepared.
MS. DIPIETRO explained that although reports have not been
prepared because the data has been ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that she is not blaming Ms. Dipietro
for not doing the reports, she was just curious how much money
is left.
MS. DIPIETRO depicted that the work is still being performed in
the sense of collecting the data, of which they receive a couple
of forms from attorneys each day, determine if the information
is correct, enter the information into the data base, and
maintain the data base. The Alaska Judicial Council has daily
activities in order to fulfill the requirements of the statute
that do not involve report writing.
1:43:52 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how much money was put into the base.
MS. DIPIETRO, in describing her records as spotty, said the
amount was $19,200 a year.
CHAIR LEDOUX deduced that putting the sporadic data that the
Alaska Judicial Council has received, which appears to be
relatively minimal, into the data base at a cost of almost
$20,000 a year.
MS. DIPIETRO stipulated that the work was not erratic, as the
data is regular, and involves following up when information is
incomplete or appears inaccurate with telephone calls, emails,
and letters to attorneys. She highlighted that the Alaska
Judicial Council is using that money to perform the work.
1:44:51 PM
VICE CHAIR KELLER reiterated that the issue may be out of the
purview of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the proposed CS for HB
83, Version 29-LS0410\H, Wallace, 2/5/15, from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection CSHB 83(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:45:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:45:52 to 1:48:02 p.m.
VICE CHAIR KELLER returned the gavel to Chair LeDoux.
HB 65-LEG./PUB. OFFICIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
1:48:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act relating to the disclosure of
financial information by persons who are subject to the
Legislative Ethics Act and by certain public officers, public
employees, and candidates for public office." [Before the
committee was CSHB 65(STA).]
1:48:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as prime sponsor said that originally the bill was intended to
change the [deadline] of the public official financial
disclosures (POFD) which are required to be filed. He explained
all public officials, whether in the state legislature, or local
governments, or boards and commissions, must file full
disclosures of their financial transactions of the previous
year. He extended that the bill takes no issue with the
substance of those filings, but rather that, under statute, the
disclosures are due on March 15. Originally, the bill moved the
date back to after the date of an individual's federal income
tax filing requirement. He opined that this would allow
individuals with complex financial situations to file an
accurate and comprehensive report within the same time frame as
they are required by federal statute to have their income tax
returns completed, without an extension. He stated that the
House State Affairs Standing Committee agreed with idea but said
the April 30 date was a little quick and moved the date to May
15. He explained that the crux of the bill would change the
annual filing dates for legislative financial disclosures and
public official's financial disclosure statements from March 15
to May 15, of each year.
1:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted further changes in the bill with
regard to professionals, such as attorneys, doctors,
accountants, engineers, architects, or independent nurses with a
multitude of clients and are required to disclose all of their
clients and revenues. He further noted that attorneys can claim
attorney-client privilege, and there are accountants who will
not allow individuals to disclose their client base, and the
amount they are being paid. Therefore, through regulatory
activity the APOC has allowed them to not disclose those
clients, he said. Statutorily, he stated that the language in
the bill makes it very clear that a public official public
disclosure filer could be exempted from disclosing information
if that information is either confidential by law or would
adversely affect the individual's ability to conduct business.
The bill then sets up the standard to weigh the potential harm
to the person comparing it to the public's interest in obtaining
that information, he related.
1:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER continued that two provisions were brought
forward by the APOC itself, which includes various reporting
requirements as it relates to different individuals residing in
different communities of different size. He said the sponsor
has no opinion on the APOC request.
1:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concluded that the APOC recommended an
increase in population from 5,000 to 15,000, and it appears that
the sponsor is neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated he has no opinion on that subject.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded to Representative Claman that in
the interest of accommodating the concerns of the APOC, the
sponsor does not object to include its request in this bill
knowing it would go through the legislative process and on
various committees with the opportunity to discuss it with the
APOC.
1:53:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the waiver of disclosing
clients is one that professionals, such as, lawyers, doctors,
nurses would have to make a special request for the waiver as it
would not automatically apply.
JULIE LUCKY, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker, Alaska State
Legislature, responded to Representative Claman that there is
currently a waiver process where the person does put forth a
letter to the APOC and the person is granted a waiver from
disclosure. She opined that the reporting reads, instead of
naming address of client it will now say "protected by HIPPA, or
attorney-client privilege, or some notation" regarding the
information is not being disclosed.
1:55:04 PM
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, responded to
Representative Claman that the bill puts the process into
statute rather than solely in regulation and it would not change
the process of the APOC "much at all, if at all." He noted an
earlier comment of individual granted a waiver or exemption for
reporting all of their clients, the individual can report the
aggregate amount and not refer to the clients; others report the
clients in an abbreviated manner, and eliminate identifying
information, and list the income.
1:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if there is a formal request lawyers
and doctors and write to the APOC, or simply make the claim on
their form.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that in general, individuals requesting
the exemption write to the APOC and explain their situation, and
the APOC goes from there.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony
1:57:33 PM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated the
committee substitute changes the population figures to now
require municipalities between the population count of 5,000 and
15,000, to file electronically. The Alaska Municipal League
(AML) had not heard from the APOC that the change was coming as
no one called any of the clerks involved. She said she does not
have the list of municipalities that have opted out, but without
that list it affects 12 different communities. While it may not
be a stretch to require electronic filing in the larger
communities, but places such as Bethel it becomes more
difficult, she noted. She related that many of the clerks do
have people filing by paper. She maintained she was told by an
individual at the APOC this was requested by the clerks in order
to allow them more time because it required [a certain amount
of] their time. She referred to AS 39.50.020(b), which read:
(b) A public official or former public official other
than an elected or appointed municipal officer shall
file the statement with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission. Candidates for the office of governor and
lieutenant governor and, if the candidate is not
subject to AS 24.60, the legislature shall file the
statement under AS 15.25.030 or 15.25.180. Municipal
officers, former municipal officers, and candidates
for elective municipal office, shall file with the
municipal clerk or other municipal official designated
to receive their filing for office. All statements
required to be filed under this chapter are public
records.
MS. WASSERMAN continued her testimony and stated that this does
not save the clerks' time as they still must get a paper copy on
file in their office. She opined that in the future when the
APOC desires changing rules that it talk to the clerks, or to
the municipalities. She expressed that AML is opposed to that
section of the bill and would like that portion removed,
otherwise AML does not have a problem with the bill.
2:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Wasserman is testifying
as a representative of the AML.
MS. WASSERMAN answered in the affirmative.
2:01:34 PM
MS. WASSERMAN reiterated to Representative Claman that other
than the above portion, AML has no problem with the bill at all.
She directed that she discussed the bill with the clerks who "in
theory" had requested this, and they said "they had not."
2:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification that if the
committee does not put the amendment in as an option, AML is
happy with the bill.
MS. WASSERMAN stated that AML is not happy with the bill that
states communities between 5,000 and 15,000 should be included.
2:02:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned Mr. Dauphinais where he received the
idea of changing the numbers for the municipalities to the
15,000 level.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that over the last couple of years,
both he and his staff have given a number of trainings and
presentations. He remarked were approached several times by
clerks requesting a manner their filers could file
electronically. He opined that if they have since changed their
mind, the APOC has no problem with that portion of the bill
being removed, and he apologized to the sponsor.
2:03:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX verified that he did not check with the clerks
recently.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "That is correct."
2:03:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that from the standpoint of the
APOC, whether the 5,000 to 15,000 has any impact in terms of
doing business.
MR. DAUPHINAIS relayed that it would not change the way the APOC
does business at all and it is completely cost neutral.
2:04:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered that as the law currently stands, an
individual who is not required to file electronically wishes to
file electronically, whether they are precluded from filing
electronically.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "No, they are not," as anyone can file
electronically.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she was having a problem understanding why
then the clerks would have approached him to change the numbers
if individuals were already allowed to file electronically.
MR. DAUPHINAIS offered that the clerks told him it was quite
bothersome for them in that they had to maintain a stack of
forms, and give them out to the filers and later collect them,
and later give them to the APOC in some manner. When filers
file electronically, they are already filed with the APOC and
[print] the copy and give it to the clerk, or the clerk can
print a copy. He offered that Ms. Wasserman was correct in that
the municipal clerk is the custodial of the record.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that her confusion is if the individuals
are able to file electronically without changing the rules, then
they really didn't have to keep ... she said she did not see why
it would have been burdensome to the clerks.
2:06:17 PM
MS. WASSERMAN responded to Representative Foster that she did
not mean to just zero in on Bethel as her records showed that 12
communities were involved and related that electronic filing
will be much more difficult in the Northwest Artic Borough or in
the North Slope Borough.
2:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 29-
LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, which read:
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "5,000"
Insert "15,000"
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "[15,000]"
Page 5, line 10:
Delete "5,000"
Insert "15,000"
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "may [15,000 SHALL]"
Insert "shall"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected and stated that after listening
to the testimony he did not believe the bill should be amended
to change the number from 5,000 to 15,000, as the clerks
affected are content with 5,000.
2:08:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08:27 to 2:10:06 p.m.
2:10:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked for clarification that the committee
would be adopting the 15,000 number.
2:11:00 PM
MS. LUCKY explained that the current statute has a threshold of
a community with a population of 15,000 wherein those municipal
officers currently can choose to paper file, or electronic file.
She opined that a great number of those people do choose to
electronic file, which is allowed under current law. During the
House State Affairs Standing Committee hearing, an amendment was
adopted to drop the threshold to 5,000. She advised that the
sponsor has heard from AML and a few of the boroughs that they
are concerned with that change. She explained that Amendment 1
would leave the status quo in the statute. She further
explained that there would be no change to the current threshold
which is a municipality with a population of 15,000 or fewer,
and would still have the option of either paper filing or filing
electronically.
2:12:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX [treating the objection as withdrawn] said
Amendment 1 passes.
2:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 65, Version 29-
LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 65(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:13:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB065 v N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Supporting Documents - Letter Jon Cook 2-2-2015.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Summary of Changes ver A to ver N.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-2-2-021315-LEG-N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-1-2-021315-ADM-N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Documents - POFD-LFD Template.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |