Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/12/2003 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 12, 2003
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 210
"An Act regarding the computation of overtime compensation by
employers before June 2, 1999; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SB 210 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act adopting the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act;
repealing certain statutes relating to electronic records and
electronic signatures; amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 285 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to the powers of the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska in regard to intrastate pipeline transportation services
and pipeline facilities, to the rate of interest for funds to be
paid by pipeline shippers or carriers at the end of a suspension
of tariff filing, and to the prospective application of
increased standards on regulated pipeline utilities; allowing
the commission to accept rates set in conformity with a
settlement agreement between the state and one or more pipeline
carriers and to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement in
regard to intrastate rates; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 210
SHORT TITLE:WAGE AND HOUR OVERTIME COMPUTATION
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/01/03 1075 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/01/03 1076 (S) L&C
05/06/03 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
05/06/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
05/06/03 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/07/03 1202 (S) L&C RPT 4DP 1NR
05/07/03 1203 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, SEEKINS,
STEVENS G;
05/07/03 1203 (S) NR: FRENCH
05/07/03 1203 (S) FN1: ZERO(LWF)
05/08/03 1253 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/8/2003
05/08/03 1253 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/08/03 1253 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/9
CALENDAR
05/09/03 1283 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 210
05/09/03 1284 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
05/09/03 1287 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/09/03 1287 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/09/03 1287 (S) VERSION: SB 210
05/10/03 1530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/10/03 1530 (H) L&C
05/12/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 285
SHORT TITLE:ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS & SIGNATURES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/25/03 1127 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/25/03 1127 (H) L&C, JUD
05/07/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/09/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE ALBERTS, Staff
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 210 on behalf of its sponsor,
Senator Bunde.
GREG O'CLARAY, Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 210.
JOHN SHIVELY, Vice President
Government and Community Relations
Holland America
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to pass SB 210.
DON ETHERIDGE
AFL-CIO - Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 210.
DAVE OESTING, Attorney at Law
Davis, Wright and Tremaine
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on SB 210, answered
questions.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 285 on behalf of the sponsor.
SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 285.
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 285, answered
questions.
SCOTT CLARK, Notary Clerk
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the lieutenant
governor in favor of HB 285.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-51, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Dahlstrom, Gatto, and Guttenberg were present at
the call to order. Representatives Rokeberg and Crawford
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 210-WAGE AND HOUR OVERTIME COMPUTATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 210, "An Act regarding the computation of
overtime compensation by employers before June 2, 1999; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0162
JANE ALBERTS, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 210 on behalf of its sponsor, Senator
Bunde. Ms. Alberts paraphrased from the sponsor statement,
which reads as follows [original punctuation provided]:
This legislation is designed to protect Alaska
employers who properly calculated overtime wages for
their employees prior to the effective date of Ch.43,
SLA 99(HB201), and correct an erroneous judicial
interpretation of Alaska's Wage and Hour Act.
In 1999 the Alaska Legislature passed HB 201 dealing
with the issue of wage "pyramiding" (paying overtime
wages more than once for the same hour of overtime
work). Unfortunately, a last minute amendment deleted
the Act's retroactive effective date (April 1, 1997).
Though future claims were clearly precluded, those
claims existing on or before the effective date of HB
201 remained active. As a result several employers
were sued for calculating overtime wages exactly how
the Alaska Department of Labor had instructed them to
do it. Every other business in the state used the
same method.
This measure, once and for all, brings certainty to
the interpretation of computing overtime under
Alaska's Wage & Hour Act. These changes are
consistent with both concerns and policy goals
expressed by the Legislature in the enactment of
Chapter 43, SLA 99 and official State Department of
Labor practice going back to pre-statehood.
CHAIR ANDERSON informed the committee that per Mason's Manual,
these court cases can't be spoken of directly. Therefore, he
instructed the committee not to ask questions on those court
cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to how much money is involved
in these pending cases.
MS. ALBERTS answered that although she didn't believe it had
been determined, it could potentially be a large sum of money.
In fact, she believes that these could potentially become class
action suits.
Number 0383
GREG O'CLARAY, Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), testified in favor of SB 210. He related
that in his nearly 40 years of representing workers, negotiating
labor contracts, and interpreting the law with respect to
employment, he has never seen a decision as odd as this. [The
judicial interpretation] requires an employer to pay the
employee twice for the same hour [when there are overtime
hours]. He related his understanding that potential exposure to
the companies in the pending cases could amount to several
hundreds of thousands of dollars. He urged the committee to
pass this legislation along.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that in some cases some of the
overtime would be time and a half, but as the employee
accumulated over 40 hours the pay would be double time.
Therefore, if an employee was paid six hours of overtime on
Monday, the employee would be pushed over the 40-hour limit and
thus requiring one hour of double time rather than time and a
half. He asked if the aforementioned has ever intervened in any
of these cases.
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY remarked that it's worse. If an employee
works six hours of overtime on Monday in a five-day workweek and
the employee works eight hours a day for the remaining four
days, the employee would be paid six hours of overtime on Monday
and under this court ruling at the end of the week the employee
would be time and a half again. Therefore, the six hours of
overtime would be paid triple time, although the statute only
requires time and a half after eight hours [in a day] and after
40 hours [in a week]. Through this judicial interpretation the
employers were being hit twice for the same number of hours. In
further response to Representative Gatto, Commissioner O'Claray
said [this legislation] doesn't deal with double time.
Number 0587
JOHN SHIVELY, Vice President, Government and Community
Relations, Holland America, informed the committee that Holland
America is one of the companies that was sued [as a result of
this judicial interpretation]. Mr. Shively reviewed the long
and tortured legal history of the case against Holland America.
The original claim was $21 and Holland America paid it.
However, the [Alaska] Supreme Court ruled that it could be
turned into a class action suit, which is the case now. A class
action suit could expose Holland America to millions. Mr.
Shively related that Holland America doesn't believe there is
any legal impediment to making the law passed in 1999
retroactive, which legislative legal counsel agrees. Therefore,
Mr. Shively requested that SB 210 be passed on.
CHAIR ANDERSON commented on the absurdity that this could
happen.
Number 0615
MR. SHIVELY noted that in the other case the judge came to the
opposite conclusion.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the statute specifies that an
employer "shall" pay time and a half overtime for hours in
excess of eight hours a day and overtime in excess of over 40
hours a week. He asked if that was the difficulty.
MR. SHIVELY said that it was a wording problem that was open to
some judicial interpretation, but never any administrative
determination. "It's the way wage and hour laws have been
interpreted by the state since statehood, before statehood, and
by every other state in the union," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that is a very compelling argument if
the language was such that it used "and".
MR. SHIVELY reiterated that a different judge came to the
opposite conclusion when reviewing the same language.
Furthermore, when the legislature discovered this, the
legislature went back and made the language very specific. He
said that [this legislation] merely places the retroactive
clause back in.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that other types of overtime
problems are sunsetted out or not applicable to this
[legislation].
Number 0830
DAVE OESTING, Attorney at Law, Davis, Wright and Tremaine,
informed the committee that the separator in the statute was
"or" not "and", which gave rise to the confused interpretation.
Number 0875
DON ETHERIDGE, AFL-CIO - Alaska, announced that he is present to
relate the AFL-CIO's support of SB 210 as it did of the original
legislation in 1998. The AFL-CIO doesn't believe that employees
should take advantage of loopholes any more than employers.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to the April 22, 2003,
memorandum from Barbara Craver, Attorney, Legislative Legal and
Research Services. He asked if there is Alaska case law
regarding whether a retrospective activity could be undertaken
if there wasn't a final judgment as it relates to the due
process rights.
MR. OESTING said there is only one such case, a land regulation
property tax dispute in Homer, and it would be favorable to the
position Ms. Craver takes. He related that Ms. Craver's
position is that the legislature may retroactively legislate
this matter because there is no absolute vested right until the
final judgment occurs, which isn't the case in this situation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the equal protection
arguments with regard to a compelling state interest.
MR. OESTING opined that the equal protection arguments wouldn't
be applicable in this situation because there is no irrational
decision made by the state in an area in which the state is
legally competent to regulate. In this situation, there was a
derelict decision that came to a strange conclusion and
retroactively was amplified into a potential class action. No
one heretofore has sought or been granted the type of protection
that this plaintiff was awarded by the trial court in its
initial determination in the case.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it could be determined that the
judge had found that the legislature had made a mistake.
MR. OESTING agreed that the above could be said, but other
judges have come to the opposite conclusion on this case.
Number 1069
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the legislature drafts
the statute and when the judges interpreted it there were
conflicting interpretations. He inquired as to why HB 201 had
to be introduced to correct language if the statute wasn't
defective.
MR. OESTING agreed that the fault would initially lie with the
legislature which wrote the statute in an ambiguous manner [that
resulted in] two courts arriving at different conclusions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to the impairment of
property rights for retroactivities.
MR. OESTING said that the above is a due process concern. When
a legal provision becomes, as a matter of law, a term of every
contract, it brings with it the ability to be removed or altered
to any contract in which it is included so long as the rights
under that legal provision haven't been reduced to a final
judgment. The aforementioned is the situation in this case and
is one of the main thrusts of arguments with regard to
defamation of property due process. It has been addressed in
exactly the same context in three to four cases, including in
the 9th Circuit by the Fair Labor & Standards Act, which is the
federal counterpart to Alaska Wage & Hour Act. Consistently,
the conclusion has been that absent a final nonappealable
judgment that statutory formulation can be revoked even if
expressly revoked because of an ambiguity in the original
statute.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 1205
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SB 210 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 285-ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS & SIGNATURES
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 285, "An Act adopting the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act; repealing certain statutes relating to
electronic records and electronic signatures; amending Rule 402,
Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1241
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 285 on behalf of the sponsor.
Mr. Hilyard provided the following testimony:
The fundamental purpose of adopting UETA [Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act], as it's commonly
referred to, is to remove perceived barriers to
electronic commerce. UETA is a procedural statute and
does not mandate either electronic signatures or
records but provides a means to effectuate
transactions when they're used. The primary objective
is to establish the legal equivalence of electronic
records and signatures with the paper writings and
manually signed signatures. In a position paper
prepared by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws, they offer several compelling
reasons why states should adopt UETA. Among these
being, UETA defines and validates electronic
signatures. An electronic signature is defined as an
electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to a
logically associated with an electronic record and
executed or adopted by a person with the intent to
sign the electronic record. UETA removes writing and
signature requirements which create barriers to
electronic transactions; UETA ensures that contracts
and transactions are not denied enforcement because
electronic media are used. UETA ensures that courts
accept electronic records into evidence [and] protects
against errors by providing appropriate standards for
the use of technology to assure party identification.
UETA avoids having the selection of medium govern the
outcome of any disputes or disagreements. And it
assures that parties have the freedom to select the
media for their transactions by agreement. Lastly,
UETA authorizes state governmental agencies to create,
communicate, receive, and store records electronically
and encourage state government, governmental entities,
to move to electronic media.
Number 1361
SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder, Division of Support Services,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified in support of
HB 285. As Mr. Hilyard noted, such legislation has been
presented in a number of legislatures across the country. She
recalled that 40 states have adopted UETA. This legislation is
important to the land recording system in Alaska because it
would provide a uniform framework for dealing with electronic
reporting in the future. She opined that enactment of this type
of provision will benefit commerce in those states that enact
this type of provision. Other agencies would also benefit from
this legislation. Government work and services are increasingly
being performed electronically. The UETA is the means by which
consistent procedures for these transactions can be developed
and assured. A high percentage of mortgage transactions in
Alaska involve out-of-state lenders, she noted.
MS. YOUNG pointed out that UETA gives states the option of
determining whether to adopt and implement electronic filing
systems or electronic reporting systems. Such optional
provisions are located in Sections 140-160 of this legislation.
Together, Sections 140-160, provide broader authorization for a
state to develop electronic systems and processes in
interactions with nongovernmental entities and persons.
Historically, land recording systems have evolved around written
records and processes based on paper documents. However, this
legislation would mean that those papers would be equal to
electronic media. She opined that this will be the future for
recording systems.
Number 1534
CHAIR ANDERSON highlighted the lack of a fiscal note with HB
285. He surmised that the lack of a fiscal note is because it
is difficult to extrapolate the potential benefits [that would
save money].
MS. YOUNG reiterated that HB 285 doesn't require anything
different than what is being done today; it doesn't require
electronic recording. Therefore, no fiscal note was created.
The legislation merely provides a framework if [the agency]
moves to that in the future.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired as to how this would work if
[an individual] wanted to "side step" a local title company and
refinance property with an out-of-state company. Specifically,
he asked how the closing would occur and ensure that the correct
parties are involved.
MS. YOUNG said that [the department] doesn't have all those
procedures defined. In fact, UETA recommends that these states
develop standards and uniform approaches to provide
"interoperability" so that the electronic recording systems in
one state are compatible with those in another. Ms. Young
mentioned that a number of national organizations are supportive
and involved with UETA, including the Property Records Industry
Association. The aforementioned association is a private and
public organization, which is currently developing standards.
Ms. Young emphasized that UETA is available for any agency to
use with transactions between parties; the electronic filing and
recording aspect of UETA is a small portion of this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD surmised then that there is no real
national standard. In the case of electronic signatures on
state forms, he inquired as to how one would verify those.
MS. YOUNG opined that part of the standards would address
electronic notaries. She assured Representative Crawford that
there would be assurances for authentication of an individual
before a notary or certification authority.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he wanted to pass the
legislation, but it seems that the cart is being placed before
the horse by making it legal to do electronic recording and
filing without having the standards in place.
Number 1858
MS. YOUNG informed the committee that there is already a federal
electronic signatures law in place, E-Sign [Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act]. In fact, there
was an electronic signature law in Alaska before E-Sign was
adopted. If UETA is adopted in its entirety, it provides a
broader authorization for dealing with electronic transactions
and would actually prevail over the federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired as to how the federal law
works.
Number 1975
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to a document from the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws dated 11/20/01
in the committee packet. He said this document relates that 46
states have adopted UETA.
MS. YOUNG said that she was only aware of 40 states that have
adopted UETA. However, she said that the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws would be reliable because
the organization actually develops the uniform laws.
Number 2037
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, turned
to Representative Crawford's earlier question. Mr. Jones
reiterated Ms. Young's testimony that HB 285 is designed to set
up a framework for the enforcement of electronic transactions
and not to specify requirements regarding those transactions.
He explained that UETA doesn't require people to engage in
electronic transactions rather UETA is designed as enforcement
for those who have chosen to use electronic transactions. Those
using electronic transactions are in the best position to judge
what level of security or assurance they need from the others
involved in the transactions. Mr. Jones pointed out that there
are various levels of securities available to those using
electronic transactions, such as the use of a pin number as a
signature or the public key infrastructure. He noted that the
public key infrastructure has a cost to it, and therefore it
would be cheaper to use a pin number. This legislation wouldn't
make the aforementioned choices, rather those choices would be
left to the individuals involved in the transactions. This
legislation merely specifies that the state will recognize the
enforceability of electronic transactions.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated his question regarding how
electronic transactions would work.
CHAIR ANDERSON drew attention to a memorandum from USKH [Unwin
Scheben Korynta Heuttl, Inc.] which provided an example of how
the production process of designing a project is completely
electronic, except for the requirement of a "wet" signature on
the final drawings.
MR. JONES said that he has performed electronic transactions in
ordering services and goods over the Internet. This legislation
would merely make those transactions enforceable when one
doesn't get what he/she ordered.
Number 2214
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that if this legislation does
merely establish a framework, then he is concerned with regard
to the organization that does it and the problems that already
exist with electronic matters, such as the readability between
PCs and Macintosh computers.
MR. JONES specified that this legislation is a framework to
allow people to answer those questions and create specific
requirements just as is currently done with paper transactions.
In further response to Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Jones
highlighted that the federal E-Sign law specifies that no state
law can favor a particular technology over another, otherwise it
will be preempted by the federal law. Since UETA doesn't
specifically favor a particular technology, it has been given
the express exemption from preemption under the federal law.
Mr. Jones pointed out that if the state were to choose a
particular technology the law could become obsolete due to the
speed at which technology is changing.
Number 2355
SCOTT CLARK, Notary Clerk, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
testified on behalf of the lieutenant governor in favor of HB
285. Mr. Clark stated that Alaska does have an electronic
signature law, although it is restricted to a specific type of
technology. He related his observation that the aforementioned
has limited the advancement of the electronic transaction
process. Therefore, UETA would step backwards and create a
broad framework with regard to the legal definition of an
electronic signature.
TAPE 03-51 SIDE B
MR. CLARK echoed earlier testimony regarding the importance of
not penning the state into a corner by adopting [legislation
that specifies a particular technology to be used for electronic
transactions].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked of notaries could lose their
livelihood [with the adoption of this legislation].
MR. CLARK answered that it wouldn't be likely because there are
aspects of notarization that an electronic signature will never
be able to replace. For example, notaries check for the
willingness and competency of the signer. He said he wasn't
sure how technology would replace the aforementioned human
interaction. Mr. Clark commented that UETA would provide the
framework by which the state could look at what an electronic
notarization would look like. He reiterated earlier testimony
that HB 285 wouldn't mandate an electronic notarization. In
fact, current notary law requires a handwritten signature. He
mentioned that the notary laws will need to be updated in order
to accommodate this electronic notarization/signature.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 2278
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 285 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that he is at a complete loss.
He said that he didn't receive much clarification with regard to
how this would work. He related that although he isn't going to
object to HB 285 moving out of committee, he might not vote for
it on the House floor if he doesn't receive some answers. He
mentioned that perhaps the local title companies would have some
input on this.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that for real estate transactions, one
can do many things by e-mail and fax, but hardcopies
[handwritten signatures] have to follow at some point.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if Representative Lynn was sure
that was the case because he understood electronic signatures to
hail the end of [the need for handwritten signatures].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that he wasn't going to oppose
the legislation moving from committee, but he suggested that
there needs to be a model or direction for this.
Number 2123
MR. HILYARD informed the committee that the House Finance
Committee is hearing legislation today that will promote a pilot
program for electronic procurement. Although this pilot program
wouldn't necessarily require UETA or advanced electronic
signature technology, UETA or advanced electronic signature
technology would potentially make this pilot program more
effective. He noted that the State of Virginia has a thorough
electronic procurement process and is moving toward using many
of the on-line technologies to effectuate state business. With
respect to electronic signatures, Mr. Hilyard related his
understanding that the legislature will have the ability to
specify when electronic signatures can be used and when they
can't. He offered to do further research and provide the
committee with information regarding what the state of
Washington, Virginia, and Texas are doing since implementation
of electronic procurement. Mr. Hilyard remarked that [passage
of the legislation] will allow [the state] to more effectively
leverage technology for streamlining state government.
CHAIR ANDERSON interjected the possibility of an [electronic]
permanent fund dividend application or voter registration.
MR. HILYARD highlighted that income taxes can be electronically
filed. However, one can't completely file a permanent fund
dividend electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he understands the move
toward electronic business, but he merely wants to know more
about it.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon hearing no objection, announced that HB 285
was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|