Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/17/2003 08:12 AM House STA
| 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 STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 2003
8:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 248
"An Act relating to the annual salary of the chief procurement
officer; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 248 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 243
"An Act establishing state agency program performance management
and audit powers in the Office of the Governor for the
evaluation of agency programs; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities for new or expanded public
correctional facilities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and the Municipality of
Anchorage."
- MOVED CSHB 134(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to elections, questioned ballots and questioned
voters, voter registration, training of election officials,
preparation of election materials, voter identification,
absentee voting, counting ballots, and the primary election; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act requiring nonprofit corporations under the Alaska Net
Income Tax Act to provide prior public notice of lobbying
expenditures and an annual report of lobbying expenditures to
the Department of Revenue; providing for a civil penalty for
failure to provide the notice; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/24/03
HOUSE BILL NO. 215
"An Act repealing statutes that relate to art works in public
buildings and facilities and that require a set percentage of
construction costs to be spent on art."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/24/03
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 248
SHORT TITLE:SALARY OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/04/03 0786 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/03 0786 (H) STA
04/04/03 0786 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
04/04/03 0786 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 243
SHORT TITLE:EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/04/03 0769 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/03 0769 (H) STA, FIN
04/04/03 0770 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/04/03 0770 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/10/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/10/03 (H) Mtg Postponed Unitl Adjnmt of
F/Session
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/03 0306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/03 0306 (H) STA, FIN
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/15/03 0996 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SEATON
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE:ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/14/03 0965 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/14/03 0965 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/03 0965 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/14/03 0965 (H) FN2: ZERO(ADM)
04/14/03 0965 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DAN SPENCER, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of DOA during the
hearing on HB 248.
JAY HOGAN, Deputy Director
Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the administration
to answer questions during the hearing on HB 243.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the division during
the hearing on HB 243.
JERRY BURNETT, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding a new fiscal
note from DOC and a proposed committee substitute (CS), during
the hearing on HB 134.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 134.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
243.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the division during
the hearing on HB 266.
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
266.
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Staff
to Representative Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 266.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
[The recording began briefly, was paused, then began again. No
minutes were lost.]
HB 248-SALARY OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
Number 0030
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 248, "An Act relating to the annual salary of the
chief procurement officer; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0090
DAN SPENCER, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Administration (DOA), referred to the new fiscal note [from DOA,
dated 4/16/03, included in the committee packet], which was
provided to the committee in response to a request from Chair
Weyhrauch [during the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting on April 15, 2003]. He pointed to the [analysis]
portion of the fiscal note, where it shows an annual savings of
approximately $8,200 "at the current salary ranges of each of
the people involved."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated the range [26] of the director
"going to zero." He asked if [the legislature] needs to take
some action to "zero that out" of the Budget Review Unit (BRU).
MR. SPENCER answered no. He explained, "What we have done is we
have re-classed that position to this deputy director position."
In response to a follow-up question by Representative Seaton, he
confirmed that because of the reclassification, there is no
[position] to be filled.
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to amend the fiscal note such
that the decrement is indicated in the relevant portion instead
of simply in the analysis.
MR. SPENCER stated that the reality is that "this particular
division is getting the charge to do a lot more" within its
existing budget. He mentioned centralizing procurement. For
example, he indicated that the budget reflects that there are
$1.5 million-worth of savings that [the division] has to find in
leasing, as well as probably "another couple million dollars"
that the division will have for all the procurement officers.
He stated that although virtually all of the Department of
Administration has taken reductions, it has "tried not to do
that in this particular division because, in fact, their work
load is going to go up here over the next couple of years, and
that wouldn't help us very much in that regard."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it seems to him that if
there's a decrement based on the actions [the administration]
takes, it ought to be recognized. He added, "If, subsequently,
the agency, or any agency, seeks additional funds, that ought to
go under the budget hopper, along with everything else."
MR. SPENCER explained that when "we" did the budget, the
governor had already decided that "we were going to go this
route," which he said is one of the reasons that the budget is
the way it is today, is [because] we anticipated this savings in
there already."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there are any other areas
where Mr. Spencer is aware of where [Governor Murkowski]
incorporated cuts, prior to legislative approval.
MR. SPENCER clarified that no legislative approval was needed to
make the adjustment that resulted in the salary savings. In
response to a follow-up comment by Representative Berkowitz, he
stated the following:
We need legislative approval on this particular one to
change the salary range of the chief procurement
officer; but in terms of the administrative assignment
of positions and the salary ranges of other positions,
[it] is an administrative action, and the savings that
result from those - we do these every day. These are
not situations where an appropriation's required for
us to adjust the salary ranges, realize some savings,
and apply that savings to other areas of our
operations. This is [a] normal course of business.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the savings has to be
within the BRU, and if it's not, and there's a change in what
the BRU is, that savings ought to be returned to the general
fund, where it's subject to appropriation by the legislature.
MR. SPENCER noted: "This is a savings in this particular salary
area, but we're going to be doing other things within this.
This is part of our normal course of administering these
programs, where we can take this savings and apply it to those
other areas, without asking for additional money."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks that the general discussion comes
up in a lot of fiscal notes and is an issue to be sensitive to
when addressing fiscal notes.
[The motion to amend the fiscal note was not addressed further.]
Number 0532
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 248 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for purposes of making a
comment. He continued as follows:
This is another example of special interests, or very
specific legislation, that I think is somewhat onerous
in the legislative process, and I would encourage the
administration to seek consolidation of these kind of
job-related bills, so we don't get them piece-meal.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, HB 248 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 243-EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
Number 0610
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 243, "An Act establishing state agency program
performance management and audit powers in the Office of the
Governor for the evaluation of agency programs; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0722
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 243, Version 23-GH1138\D, Lauterbach,
4/16/03, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D
was before the committee.
Number 0768
JAY HOGAN, Deputy Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB),
Office of the Governor, in response to a question by Chair
Weyhrauch, said he had not received a letter from Jim Baldwin,
but he added that he thought it had come directly to the
committee.
[The committee took an at-ease from 8:22 a.m. to 8:23 a.m.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the committee discussion during the
previous hearing on HB 243, [April 15, 2003], had to do with
concerns over Section 3 of [the original bill version, beginning
on page 1, line 14, which read as follows]:
*Sec.3. AS 44.19 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec.44.19.147. Internal audit records. The
office shall keep a complete file of internal audit
reports resulting from audits conducted under AS
44.19.145(a), and a complete file of the internal
audit work papers and other related supportive
material. Internal audit work papers and other
related supportive material are confidential, and
internal audit reports are confidential until released
by the governor.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that the concern was in regard to whether
the new provision would in any way impede the legislature from
obtaining records, through its own audit function, that were
prepared by the executive branch.
Number 0820
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of the
division, noted that she had read the additional language [added
to Section 3 of Version D, on page 2, beginning on line 5, which
read as follows]:
However, the legislative audit division has the right
to access these confidential reports, papers, and
other material in the same manner and to the same
extent as provided in AS 24.20.271(6) for access by
the division to confidential material of state
agencies. The legislative audit division shall
maintain the confidentiality of any reports, papers,
or other materials obtained from the office in the
same manner as the legislative audit division
maintains the confidentiality of other confidential
material to which the legislative audit division has
access under AS 24.20.271(6).
MS. DAVIDSON stated that her concern as a practitioner, rather
than as an attorney, is in regard to adding specificity of
language, which could potentially raise questions or concerns
about all the other confidential information that [the division]
is allowed to see "by that statute." She clarified as follows:
While I think that, ultimately, we would be able to
get to all the confidential information that we
already can [get to], I'm concerned ... [that] adding
this type of language to this specific issue might
cause us difficulties or delays, by other agencies
saying, "Well, you don't have this language and my
stuff is confidential, so I can't let you look at it."
And that would be my concern about adding that type of
language.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if Ms. Davidson's first concern was in
regard to the first sentence of the added language, beginning
with the word "However" [on page 2, line 5, of Version D].
MS. DAVIDSON concurred. She added that also of concern is the
language in the following sentence, [beginning on page 2, line
9, of Version D]. She continued:
We are covered by legislative ethics Act, and that is
what covers the penalties for disclosing any
confidential information; so, we're already bound by
not revealing any confidential information, and we've
had the procedures in place to protect that. So,
again, I don't think the language adds anything to ...
either our operations or our access, and I would only
be concerned about any potential barriers it might
create for us.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that the idea had been to remove
barriers, not to create them.
Number 1065
MR. HOGAN, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that he had been present for the prior meeting on HB
243, but only during the discussion of the fiscal note. He
continued as follows:
When we responded to the Department of Law's
suggestion that if we were resurrecting the audit
function, we might want to consider making the working
papers confidential along the lines of legislative
audit, in the process of actually drafting the
legislation, we discovered that although the state had
had an ... active internal audit function for a number
of years - perhaps going back to statehood - there
never was any statutory authority to do that. As a
result, Section 1 would put in the executive budget
Act a responsibility on OMB to become involved in
performance budgeting, performance auditing, [and]
performance measurement - an authority we do not
specifically have, but have used anyway.
Then, in ... Section 2, we specifically included the
authority to perform internal audits. And then ...
[Section 3], the one that's been most under
discussion, the provision that mirrors the
legislature's grant of authority to legislative audit,
... that is [intended] to keep the working papers
confidential - not the reports, per se, but the
working papers. The reason being that sometimes, some
matters are discussed that are resolved in the audit
process, and the public discussion of them after ...
might in fact hinder the accomplishment of what goes
on, particularly when it relates to personnel matters.
All of the records [relating to] personnel matters,
the state chooses to keep in confidence.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a [two-page letter from the
Office of the Attorney General, prepared by James Baldwin,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, included in the
committee packet]. He suggested that the discussion is
basically about executive privilege, and he asked, "Are we
stepping further into an area where this information would not
be available to [the Division of] Legislative Audit?"
MR. HOGAN explained [the administration's] concerns regarding
going back into the audit business as follows:
There are things that are in the nature of personnel
complaints that come up, that we might be asked by the
governor to look into. Personnel matters, records,
and files are, by state law, confidential. The
discussion of those - the decisions made, based on a
personnel case - are perhaps better left undisclosed,
publicly, because the solution may be that a person or
persons cease to be employees of the state. So,
that's really our interest in this, and it is not to
keep matters from the public, it is to realize that
we're going to get into sticky situations that involve
other matters that are held in confidence by state
law.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he has no problem with the
issue of confidentiality. He referred to the middle of the
second paragraph in Mr. Baldwin's letter, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
It is likely that the preliminary reports of the
auditors are privileged because the auditors will be
advising the governor on matters of policy which would
be part of the executive decision-making process.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he wants to know if that
means that the legislative auditors will be excluded from "this
material by this legal opinion," because it's a matter of
privilege and not a matter of confidentiality, which they would
be adhering to.
MR. HOGAN pointed out that Mr. Baldwin goes on [in the letter]
to say that a court case will be required to determine the
limits of that. He stated that he honestly does not know what
the outcome of that would be. He opined that, as a matter of
sensitivity on the part of the governor's office, the governor
might like some time to "contemplate something" before he or she
decides to take action, much as the legislative auditor prepares
a confidential preliminary report, which is distributed to the
agencies, and then to the committee for a full discussion before
it is released. He said that the administration tried [in HB
243] to copy the system that exists in the legislature.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he doesn't have a problem with
what [the administration] is attempting in the bill. He again
mentioned the [letter from the Office of the Attorney General]
and continued as follows:
I'm wondering whether that interpretation is that this
would be a ... matter of privilege between the
governor and policy makers, and whether that's going
to be excluded from the ... [Division of] Legislative
Audit's ability to access that material, even though
they will hold it all in confidence.
MR. HOGAN responded, "That's obviously what they're concerned
about, but I don't know whether that circumstance would really
come up."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "Does [the Division of] Legislative
Audit have a problem with this?"
MS. DAVIDSON said she noted a couple of things while reading the
letter from [the Office of the Attorney General]: First, Mr.
Baldwin writes about the preliminary report being privileged; he
doesn't have anything to say about the working papers.
Typically, she said, if [the division] is trying to utilize work
done by other auditors, it is more interested in what is in the
working papers, rather than "their judgments on how to report
that information." She clarified that it is less of an issue
for her that "it doesn't so much speak to the working papers as
to the report." Second, "in terms of it being privileged," Ms.
Davidson said that it probably would be an issue that would have
to be taken up by the court. Regarding the language in [Version
D] addressing confidentiality, she stated that she doesn't know
how that would weigh against an assertion of privilege. She
added, "I don't know that they're necessarily linked together.
But as I say, I'm more concerned about having access to the
working papers ...."
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to a question by Representative
Seaton, confirmed that she is more comfortable with the language
in the original bill than that in the proposed Version D.
Number 1639
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON [made a motion to rescind the committee's
action in adopting] the proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version 23-GH1138\D, Lauterbach, 4/16/03, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that the whole notion of
keeping things confidential in government gives him a lot of
pause. He stated that it smacks of secrecy. He opined that
there needs to be a better way of insuring that the public has
access to information that's gathered. He stated that when the
executive or legislative branch makes decisions, it should be a
transparent process. He said that he understands the need to
protect the confidentiality that's related to personnel, or
security issues, or other reasons enumerated regarding going
into executive session; however, absent those kinds of
compelling reasons, "it all should be out there."
Representative Berkowitz said, "The confidentiality in the
version that we're reverting to seems far beyond that kind of
transparency."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH posited that the proposed Version D provides
more restrictions than the original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Are there any other provision
of law ... that would keep ... the work product confidential,
without specifying it here?"
MR. HOGAN answered that he has never looked into that question
personally, but he would suspect that [the Division of]
Legislative Audit is the only agency that has that particular
language on the statutes, "and this would be the second
occurrence of it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated the following:
It seems to me though - and ... I haven't read the
cases based on Mr. Baldwin's opinion, and his
reference to the budget report case - that ... the
work of the auditors just on its own would be subject
to the deliberative process if the secrecy need or the
confidentiality need arose. And we wouldn't need to
specify it in statute again.
MR. HOGAN responded that he wouldn't assume that it would apply
to the budget. He stated that he thinks "audit" is a
"significant term of art that will have its own format and own
composition"; therefore, he said he could not see how it would
relate to budget papers.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Aside from personnel issues,
what ... in auditing would require confidentiality?"
Number 1855
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested, "Things like ... proprietary
information on contracts?"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied: "That can be redacted. ...
Again, the proprietary information is protected [by] other
provision in law."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that the auditors would know best what kind
of things should be confidential. He asked Ms. Davidson to
comment.
MS. DAVIDSON gave an example of auditing the Division of Family
and Youth Services (DFYS), which she said the Division of
Legislative Audit has been involved with quite a bit. Most of
that information is confidential, she noted.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected that it is protected by
court records, though.
MS. DAVIDSON said that the division would typically be looking
at [DFYS's] files, and those are confidential by law. She
explained:
When the Division of Legislative Audit prepares the
report for the [Joint Committee on Legislative Budget
and Audit] to review, we have to write a report so
that it is available for public release. We don't put
that information in. We have to write it very
carefully. It's a process of making sure that the
agency has a look at it and makes sure that there's
nothing in there that we're not supposed to be saying.
MS. DAVIDSON related experiences where agencies have wanted
certain information not to be disclosed, and she said that there
has "just generally been discussions about it." She told the
committee that she has been with the division for a number of
years, has worked as legislative auditor for approximately the
last five years, and has been privy to information for longer
than that, and she doesn't know of a case where the [Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit] has not released a
report [to the] public. She noted that [that committee] has a
long history of allowing the reports produced by [the Division
of Legislative Audit] to go forward.
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, said
that [the division] also does analysis of individuals who may
participate in drug testing programs. She indicated a most
recent audit on Medicaid to evaluate how well the controls are
working, which she said requires getting down to individual
files. She said, "We need the details to do the work, but those
are not the issues that we're reporting on; we're reporting on
the systems and whether the state agency is functioning
properly." She explained that [the division] needs to be able
to look at the underlying transactions in order to be able to do
that evaluation.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ summarized that Ms. Davidson was saying
that [the division] deals with confidential areas when the issue
is in regard to personnel or medical records, or when it's
proprietary - all of which he said seem to him to have other
protections elsewhere in the law - and when the agency asks that
the information not be released, which he said raises a flag.
He explained that he does not know when an agency can protect
its internal workings just by saying, "Please don't tell people
this is what we're doing."
MS. DAVIDSON responded as follows:
Without trying to disclose anything that I had privy
to in executive session, there are issues that come up
and whether or not disclosure of certain information
would be detrimental to the financial condition of the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if that would be things like
pending court cases and investment decisions, for example.
MS. DAVIDSON replied, "In that general topic area." She
reiterated that the [Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and
Audit] has the history [of allowing the reports produced by the
Division of Legislative Audit to go forward] since, she guessed,
statehood. She emphasized that the division writes the reports
so that they are available for public disclosure - it doesn't
put any legally confidential material in the reports.
Number 2133
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "I'd just like to move HB 243,
Version A, back before us."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said: "Version A is before us. Are there any
amendments, or any further discussion of Version A?"
Number 2157
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested the following conceptual
amendment:
Page 2, line 4, after "confidential"
Insert "only to the extent permitted by other
provisions of law"
MR. HOGAN, in response to Chair Weyhrauch's invitation to
comment, stated that he would prefer to reserve his comments to
"see what Mr. Baldwin might think of that."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated for the record - and in case Mr.
Baldwin is brought into the conversation - that he does not want
HB 243 to become the basis for new assertions of
confidentiality. He said that he is not sure that the language
he suggested is the appropriate language, and he added that "it
certainly doesn't go to the next line, which raises another set
of issues."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if work papers and related
supportive materials in the administration are confidential at
this point in time.
MR. HOGAN responded that he doesn't know.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 243 would he held until later
in the meeting, at which time Mr. Baldwin may be available by
phone to offer comments.
HB 134-CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
Number 2309
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act authorizing the Department of
Corrections to enter into agreements with municipalities for new
or expanded public correctional facilities in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and
the Municipality of Anchorage."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that [in committee packets] was a new
fiscal note from the Department of Corrections, dated 4/16/03,
3:36 p.m., as well as a proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version 23-LS0563\H, Luckhaupt, 4/15/03.
Number 2365
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections (DOC), clarified that Chair Weyhrauch
had read the revision date of the fiscal note in the committee
packet. The date at the bottom right read "4/17/03 7:07 AM", he
noted.
MR. BURNETT referred to a portion of the sectional analysis of
the new fiscal note, regarding the Seward 400-bed expansion, and
noted that it shows a fully allocated cost estimated at
$16,317,200 if [the facility is fully operational in] fiscal
year (FY) 2010. He told the committee that the face of the
fiscal note remains unchanged, with a total operating cost of
$47 million.
MR. BURNETT said, "I'd point out in the analysis that that $47
million is just a little over $5 million greater than our cost
to send the equivalent number of prisoners to Arizona."
Number 2426
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as sponsor, stated that he thinks that the major
changes discussed by the committee [in the previous hearing on
HB 134, April 15, 2003] are reflected in Version H and in the
fiscal note. He said that he appreciates Representative
Seaton's efforts in working with DOC to address the projected
needs of Seward [through an amendment adopted at the previous
hearing and incorporated into Version H], which he opined has
resulted in an improvement to the bill.
Number 2451
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved [to adopt] the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0563\H, [as a work draft]. There
being no objection, Version H was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM made the following comment:
You showed the Arizona component, you don't do it in
the fiscal note, but I appreciate the idea that there
is an inclusion of the two. When they meld together,
it's going to be only a $5 million deficit, eight
years out, or whatever year that is.
MR. BURNETT clarified, "It's four years out, and that number is
shown in the analysis."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "Yeah, I just wanted to point that
out; that's a very good thing." He said that someone wrote him
a letter recalling that Fairbanks wanted to have 200 beds;
however, he noted that there are only 80 beds proposed in the
bill. He asked what the reason for that is.
MR. BURNETT explained that 80 beds is the number that the
department has determined is appropriate in order to meet the
overcrowded, pretrial needs of the Fairbanks area. By expanding
at a larger facility in another location, he said, the
department will be able to take more people [in those other
areas] and avoid having longer-term prisoners in the Fairbanks
area.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if that would also be because of the
fact that the facility in Bethel is closely entwined with the
facility in Fairbanks.
MR. BURNETT answered, "Not directly, but it's the same type of
problem in Bethel." Both places, he explained, are regional
areas that gather pretrial prisoners, and, he reiterated, by
having in-state facilities sufficient to keep longer-term
prisoners, the department is able to reduce the number of
longer-term prisoners in those facilities. In response to a
follow-up question by Representative Holm, he confirmed that it
is the department's position that 80 beds [added to the facility
in Fairbanks] would be sufficient.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated for the record that he had called almost
every community that [has] a correctional facility to find out
if more beds should possibly be added, because, he opined, it
seemed like [HB 134] [would be] "the vehicle to do it in."
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE noted that there is an $80 million
hospital being built at the intersection of the communities of
Palmer and Wasilla. He said that there are already discussions
going on about adding security provisions in that hospital. He
also said, "There's already discussions with the utilities.
They're stepping forward and trying to find ways to reduce the
operational cost of providing more efficient energy." He
indicated that efforts are being made, not only to fuel the
economies in the communities involved, but also to make [the
proposals] work in the most efficient manner possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his appreciation for the work
done by Representative Stoltze and DOC, for the synergy and
efforts of DOC and the City [of Seward], and for [the
department's] incorporating the intent language to ensure that
"all these pieces come together."
Number 2700
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 134, Version 23-LS0563\H, Luckhaupt, 4/15/03, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 134(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 243-EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
Number 2729
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's attention to HOUSE BILL
NO. 243, "An Act establishing state agency program performance
management and audit powers in the Office of the Governor for
the evaluation of agency programs; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH brought attention back to [Representative
Berkowitz's] proposed conceptual amendment:
Page 2, line 4, after "confidential"
Insert "only to the extent permitted by other
provisions of law"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that if the conceptual amendment is added,
[page 2, beginning on line 4 of the original bill, would read as
follows:
Internal audit work papers and other related
supportive material are confidential only to the
extent permitted by other provisions of law, and
internal audit reports are confidential until released
by the governor.
Number 2814
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, for the benefit of Mr. Baldwin, stated
that he does not want [HB 243] to create an additional area of
confidentiality. He said that based on previous testimony, it
seemed to him that the major areas of where confidential issues
arose - for example, personnel issues, proprietary information,
and court and medical records - were covered in other provisions
of law.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
responded as follows:
The reason that we drafted the bill the way we did was
... to try to approximate the kind of powers that your
auditors have, so that they could be as effective as
your auditors are in what they do for you. The
problem with what I think Representative Berkowitz is
proposing - the problem for us - is that it gets us
into this qualified nature of the privilege. In other
words, you're in this balancing approach.
I'm not sure that all the areas that are covered by
confidentiality provisions now would be broad enough
to cover what we proposed these auditors to be doing,
which ... basically would be not the typical type of
post-audit function - which your auditors now do [an]
extremely good job of - but the performance-type
audits that the governor wants to institute for
determining how programs are operating, advising him
on policy directives, and providing him with an
ability to reach in to the departments and exercise
the kind of control that he believes he wants to
exercise.
And so, we wanted this broad area of confidentiality,
because it's really the governor [who's] going to be
... using these people as a tool, and so it'll be part
of his executive privilege-type confidentiality that
we would like to attach to this. So, that's why we
had it in the bill as being sort of an absolute area
of confidentiality in that context.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he understands the governor's
desire to expand his powers as much as possible, but he said
that [the legislature's] responsibility is to constrict [those
powers] as much as it can. Regarding performance audits, he
asked if they take place at the federal level in other states
and, if so, what kind of confidentiality provisions "attach in
those jurisdictions."
MR. BALDWIN answered that he has not done the type of research
that would enable him to answer that question. He said, "I
believe they do have normal-type confidentiality requirements."
TAPE 03-41, SIDE B
Number 2969
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if there was a conclusion
that came from an audit, it would be helpful, as a legislator,
to know how that decision was arrived at, in order to look at
the steps that led to the conclusion and determine whether to
agree or disagree. He indicated it would involve things like
methodology and input. He added, "Unless we have access to the
predicate work that led to the conclusion, it's sometimes
difficult to agree or disagree with an audit."
Number 2912
JAY HOGAN, Deputy Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB),
Office of the Governor, stated that his feeling is that the end
product would be very similar to what the legislative auditor
currently delivers to the committee, provided [the
administration] was doing an audit, as opposed to a budget
preparation. He added, "In fact, we have over in our office a
set of the internal audit reports that were done by the function
when it existed previously, and they look very much similar in
layout and so on, and they're all released documents and filed
accordingly."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to "the new Section 3," and asked if it
would restrict the legislative auditors from performing their
audit function, by not having access to executive branch papers
or documents.
MR. BALDWIN answered as follows:
I think to a certain extent it would. And let me just
say this is a delicate area. I know that [I'm] here
as a lawyer for the executive branch talking to the
legislative branch, but please understand that just as
there are certain areas that the governor can't
intrude upon, as far as your legislative powers go, I
think you have to acknowledge that there are certain
areas in the governor's powers that legislators can't
intrude upon. And so, to the extent that an auditor
is your representative, your employee ... in carrying
out your functions, there would be certain things that
I think ... one of our internal auditors might do for
the governor that it would not be appropriate for the
legislative auditor to have access to. And so, to a
certain extent, yes, I would have to answer that
question yes to be open with you about it.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how the public would have complete trust
in the integrity of a process, whatever branch of government it
may be in, if somebody else can't come in and scrutinize it from
the outside to determine whether there's corruption.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ echoed, "Who audits the auditors?"
MR. BALDWIN said that he thinks that public officials have to
answer to the voters every two or four years regarding what they
do; however, he opined that in carrying out their powers, there
has to be some protection for the advice that's given to
decision makers, "so that it's candid and operates
appropriately, which is exactly why we have the privileges that
we have." He continued as follows:
This would set it out in law so people understand what
it is. It's only provided up until the point that the
governor decides to release the audit report, which is
very similar to the powers and the way [the] process
works on the legislative side of the exercise of the
audit function.
If there is something going on that is of public
interest, usually it's hard to keep it from the public
once there's some understanding of it being in
existence. And I think it would function, in essence,
the way it functions on the legislative side of
things. ... Audits ultimately are made public; it's
just that, during the process of the development of
the audit and the advice that the auditors are giving
to the governor until the policy decision is made,
it's considered the best practice to keep that
shielded from inquiry until the decision is made.
After that point, there's not much of an interest in
keeping it confidential.
Number 2709
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that the proposed committee substitute
was worked on with some desire to alleviate tension between the
executive and legislative branch during an audit, and prevent a
lawsuit between those two branches. He stated that he
understood from Ms. Davidson's previous testimony that the
committee substitute language would actually interfere with the
auditing process and, therefore, it was not recommended to the
committee. He added that it sounds like what Mr. Baldwin is
saying is that there will still be inherent tensions that will
need a mediator/third body to resolve them. He said he doesn't
know what sort of language will prevent this, but perhaps it
will be Representative Berkowitz's conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he thinks the committee is getting "far
a field" from what it is trying to do. He stated his
understanding that the bill is an attempt to provide the
management function of audit to improve the ability of the
administration to administer. It's not about trying to keep
something from the legislature; rather, it's about trying to
allow the administration to function in a manner similar to a
business, for example. He explained that in his business, the
books are audited to ensure that things are not done
inappropriately. Furthermore, that information is kept
internally; it is opened up to a bank only after it has been
prepared, and is not opened up to the public. Referring again
to his own business, Representative Holm said, "So we don't just
go out and ... [throw] everything out on the table and ... say,
'Well, you go figure out some way to say that we're not doing it
appropriately.'
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he thinks Mr. Baldwin made a good point
regarding the administration and the legislature having
different functions to fulfill. Notwithstanding that, he added
that the legislature still has oversight; it still has the
ability to appropriate funds to the administration. He said
that, personally, he wants to give the administration the
opportunity to function in the best manner that it can, and he
doesn't see [HB 243] as trying to create some kind of insidious
confidential situation; rather, "it's something where you can
work within your departments to really work with them
appropriately."
Number 2553
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 4, which read,
"Internal audit work papers and other related supportive
material", and asked if those are confidential now.
MR. BALDWIN answered that in the legislative audit context they
are. In response to a follow-up question by Representative
Seaton, Mr. Baldwin stated his understanding that upon the
request of a legislator or the [Joint Committee on Legislative
Budget and Audit], a performance audit can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said: "I think that what I heard you say
was if we establish this within the governor's office, that may
restrict the ability of legislative audit to access these
materials that they now have the ability to access to do a
performance audit for us. Is that correct?"
MR. BALDWIN responded as follows:
I think we're getting two things crossed here. The
legislative auditors are going to still have the same
access to whatever materials they have now, but there
might be audit materials that our auditors have
collected for their own specific audits .... But, the
basic material from which all that is drawn would be
as equally available to the legislative auditors as to
our auditors. This would not interfere with that.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Davidson if she shares that same
interpretation.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that the base information would be
available to the division. She continued as follows:
Typically, it's more efficient. If somebody's gone
in, done the work, conducted the interviews, it's more
efficient to go in [and] review their work, to decide,
"Where do we want to go from here.?" So, it's more a
matter of efficiency, as opposed to not having access
to the base information or the base transaction.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked Ms. Davidson if she would feel any
restriction in being able to continue the division's function
due to the power [that HB 243 proposes to give to] the
administration.
Number 2402
MS. DAVIDSON answered, "Generally, no." She continued as
follows:
Actually, [when] the internal audit function ...
operated in the past, ... there was a report released
by that organization, and we were asked by the [Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit] to go audit
that report. And we had access to the work papers and
we were able to carry out that audit.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if Ms. Davidson thinks the division
will still have its oversight function and would not be impeded
in its functions by "this audit in place."
MS. DAVIDSON responded:
I don't know if it was a matter of accommodation that
we were offered to take a look at these work papers,
or they didn't have a statutory basis for carrying out
that mission. I don't know the legal basis for that.
And again, ... if I understood correctly, the matter
isn't really one of confidentiality or not; we've
moved on to the powers between the executive and the
legislative branches. And in the past, we have been
accommodated, and been able to look into their work
papers.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there are statutes which were
repealed that need to be resurrected and, if there were, he
asked what those statutes said about confidentiality.
Number 2286
MR. BALDWIN replied that there was no provision about
confidentiality. The audit function, he said, was more or less
an implied power "when we did it." According to his research,
Mr. Baldwin said, there are still some vestiges of the statutes
that exist in the Department of Administration; however, they
are not exercised "in the way of an audit function."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that an implied power that
has gone unexercised for a number of years is still an implied
power. He asked if that is correct.
MR. BALDWIN reiterated that it has not been exercised, but may
be implied. He added, "It was our judgment it would ... be
better that it be expressed, and that we get it out on the
table, and we have this kind of protection; it's [a] kind of
confidentiality protection provided for in the statute as a
matter of statutory (indisc)."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "When it was exercised in the
implied context, how were the confidentiality issues handled?"
MR. BALDWIN said, as written in his letter, it would be a
qualified privilege or immunity, if anything would apply to it -
not an absolute-type immunity or privilege that the legislature
enjoys.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So, under the implied condition
it was qualified; under this statute here it's expressed? So
there's an increase in confidentiality here?"
MR. BALDWIN answered, "To a certain extent, yes." He stated
that the intention is to make it the same kind of protection and
effectiveness that the legislative auditors have. He clarified,
"So the statute approximates the kind of confidentiality
coverage that your audit reports - your work papers - would
have."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "When the audits were done under
the implied powers, ... were they somehow deficient in their
quality because it was done through an implied, rather than an
express provision?"
MR. BALDWIN said he really doesn't know.
Number 2203
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 243 was heard and held.
HB 266-ELECTIONS
[Contains discussion of SB 24, which was incorporated into HB
266, and brief mention of HB 221.]
Number 2160
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to elections, questioned
ballots and questioned voters, voter registration, training of
election officials, preparation of election materials, voter
identification, absentee voting, counting ballots, and the
primary election; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2126
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, read from "the sponsor statement" [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
In October, 2002, President Bush signed the "Help
America Vote Act," (H.R. 3295) into law (P.L. 107-
252). HAVA is the result of a bipartisan effort in
Congress to make sweeping changes to federal election
laws to improve the overall administration of
elections, increase accessibility to those with
disabilities, and also to prevent voter fraud.
Many changes required under HAVA do not require
amending Alaska statute, but HB 266 includes those
necessary to meet federal mandates. Changes
recommended in the bill before you follow the intent
of the federal law and do not place unnecessary
burdens on the voter. It is imperative that these
changes mandated by federal law are passed by the
Legislature this year.
HB 266 also includes changes the Division recommends.
The Division supports the language recommended in
Senator Lincoln's SB 24, and it has been included in
this bill with her permission. Other changes
regarding returning identification/voter cards to
other jurisdictions, reference to a "master list," and
adding types of information that can be provided by
the voter when registering in person are requested by
the Division in this bill.
Perhaps the most significant change NOT mandated by
the federal act, but recommended in this bill is
replacing the terms "non partisan" and "undeclared"
with the term "unaffiliated." Many voters do not know
the difference between the two classifications and
make numerous party affiliation changes between the
"non partisan" and "undeclared." This would eliminate
confusion on the part of the voter, while not
affecting their access to the ballot.
The Division of Elections asks for your support of
House Bill 266.
Number 2025
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the difference currently is between
"non partisan" and "undeclared".
MS. GLAISER said that the answer varies from individual to
individual. She added, "That's the whole point of the change."
She noted that there's no legal definition in "the definition
section" of statutes. In response to a question by
Representative Lynn, she replied that she does not know the
history [of the two terms].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the Department of Justice requires
review and approval of [HB 266] after it has been adopted, or if
[the bill] had already been approved.
Number 1930
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said, "We would submit this
for pre-clearance to the Department of Justice after it's
adopted."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Felix what her confidence level is
that [HB 266], in its present form, would be approved by the
Department of Justice.
MS. FELIX responded that she is very confident that it would be
approved. She said, "We really [have] just gone according to
the letter of HAVA. The Department of Justice has sent us a
letter saying they are ready and waiting for the states to begin
sending these sorts of bills in for pre-clearance. So, I think
we're all set to go."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the state also has a plan of
implementation ready.
MS. FELIX deferred the question to Ms. Glaiser.
MS. GLAISER stated that [the division] is also required "under
this federal law" to prepare a state plan. She mentioned a
state planning committee meeting and a draft form, [which] will
go out for public notice from April 28 to May 28 [2003]. She
indicated there would be a public hearing, and she said that the
state plan would be submitted to the Federal Election and
Administration Commission.
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
acknowledged that SB 24 was introduced this year. In response
to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, she confirmed that
SB 24 has been incorporated, in full, into HB 266; therefore, it
is not necessary [to remain] as a stand-alone bill. She
mentioned that Senator Georgianna Lincoln met with Lieutenant
Governor Loren Leman [regarding the issue].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that there are two other bills
regarding voter fraud. He mentioned that one of them is HB 221.
He said he was wondering if those bills should be incorporated
into [HB 266].
MS. GLAISER responded that she would prefer to keep [HB 266]
lean. She noted that federal mandates are involved and said
that she doesn't want to do anything to slow the bill down.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated not wanting to "screw this
bill up, because this is a federal requirement."
Number 1643
MS. GLAISER, in response to a request by Representative
Gruenberg, told the committee that she had spoken with him
[outside of the meeting], at which time he had noted that the
federal law requires that [the division] "identify voters
through a free access system if their question ballot was not
counted, or [only a] portion of their question ballot was
counted. Same for an absentee ballot." She stated that the
current division policy is to send the voter a letter. She
continued as follows:
Since the federal law required either a website or a
toll free number, ... this bill repeals the section
where it requires that we send a letter in addition.
Representative Gruenberg's amendment would require us
to send a letter as well as have the free access
system. It's something we already do; it will not
cause an additional cost, but it is an extra process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that Jack Chenoweth
[Legislative Legal and Research Services] had just cited a legal
opinion on [an amendment Representative Gruenberg wants to
offer]. He deferred further explanation to his staff.
Number 1572
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Staff to Representative Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the amendment would require the
division of "send out the mailer and have the Internet system."
He referred to the second page of a letter [from Jack Chenoweth,
included in the committee packet], which is regarding partially
counted votes. He continued as follows:
Right now, what the bill does is it takes out all
requirements to notify the people if you partially
counted their votes. And so what we weren't sure
about was whether or not we are going to insert both
the requirement that this be on the electronic system
and the requirement to hand out the mailer, or just
the requirement that it be on the electronic system.
Right now, there's no requirement to notify.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [HB 266] must be passed and
into law by July [2003]. He stated his belief that if a
person's ballot is not counted, that person should be notified.
He asked Chair Weyhrauch if he would grant him time until the
bill's next committee meeting to discuss the issue of an
amendment with his staff, Ms. Glaiser, and Jack Chenoweth.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Glaiser when the House Finance
Standing Committee would hear the bill.
MS. GLAISER replied that she could "put her request, 'Pending
Referral'."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he thinks that if a
person's ballot is not going to be counted, that person ought to
be sent a letter [informing him/her of that].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he needs to know what the policy
implications of that are and wants the benefit of the division's
views on it.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that not everyone knows how to use
the Internet or has access to it.
Number 1290
MS. GLAISER noted that Representative Mary Kapsner had served on
the state planning committee and requested that there be a toll-
free number, in addition, for those who do not have Internet
access. She said that the division thought that it would be
more lean and do away with the letters, but she expressed
willingness to send out the letters if the committee wants the
division to do so. She said there will be more time and expense
involved.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that there is a fiscal impact, as
well. He asked, "You do a letter now, don't you?"
MS. GLAISER said that her understanding of the fiscal note is
that it's an additional cost. "We currently do a letter, so I
don't think we would increase the fiscal note if we (indisc.),
but again, I would defer to you," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I like those question ballots.
I like having the term 'questions' instead of 'provisional', and
I was wondering how critical it is for you all to shift that
term."
MS. GLAISER stated that it is conforming language that is used
in federal law, as well as the language that will be used by
other states, but is not mandated by the federal government;
therefore, if the committee members all decided that they like
the term "question ballots", the division will call them that.
Number 1176
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Conceptual [Amendment
1], to "restore the term, 'question' where 'provisional' has
been inserted."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that relates to his own
amendment, or is separate.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that [Conceptual Amendment 1]
strictly pertains to "which term we'll want to use for the
ballots."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would work on his own amendment
over the weekend.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to Ms. Glaiser, confirmed that the
bill would be heard again by the committee at its next meeting.
MS. GLAISER confirmed that she would be happy to work with
Representative Gruenberg.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that the bill would be heard and held.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reminded the committee that his motion
to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 1] is pending.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Berkowitz if he wanted to
address it now. He restated Representative Berkowitz's motion
to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 1]. [No objection was stated.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Conceptual Amendment 1
be included in a committee substitute to be available to the
committee by the bill's next hearing.
Number 0905
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that [Conceptual Amendment 1] was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the title of the bill be
tight before it leaves the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ concurred with Representative
Gruenberg. He said, "You have an act relating to elections.
We're talking campaign finance reform, we're talking everything
here."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested that the previously stated issue
regarding the terms "undeclared" and "non partisan" be
addressed.
[HB 266 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0777
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:40
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|