Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/10/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB139 | |
| HB136 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2009
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 139
"An Act providing for an exception to allow drivers of public
utility motor vehicles to operate those vehicles with certain
screen devices operating and visible to the drivers."
- MOVED HB 139 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act limiting the release of certain information concerning
certain public employees or officials."
- MOVED CSHB 136(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 139
SHORT TITLE: ALLOW SCREEN DEVICES IN UTILITY VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
02/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/10/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTIONS
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/16/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/09 (H) STA, JUD
02/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/26/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ALLISON LAFFEN, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 139 on behalf of
Representative Gruenberg, co-sponsor.
PHIL STEYER, Director
Government Relations and Corporate Communications
Chugach Electric Association (CEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139.
JIM POSEY, General Manager
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: His testimony supporting HB 139 was
presented by Phil Steyer.
BRIAN NEWTON, President/CEO
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139.
CURTIS THAYER, Director
Corporate & External Affairs
ENSTAR Natural Gas Company ("ENSTAR")
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139.
DANA STROMMEN, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, sponsor, which is chaired by Representative Ramras,
discussed changes to HB 136 incorporated in Version 26-LS0574\E,
Luckhaupt, 3/5/09.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
136, on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
sponsor, which is chaired by Representative Ramras.
JOHN CYR, Executive Director
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 136.
JEFF LANDVATTER, Southeast Vice President
Board of Directors
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 136.
ROB HUEN, Chief of Police, Anchorage Police Department,
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Had his testimony in support of HB 136
presented by Robert Glen.
DEREK HSIEH, President
Executive Board
Anchorage Police Department Employees' Association (APDEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Had his testimony relating the APDEA's
support of HB 136 presented by Robert Glen.
ROBERT GLEN, Sergeant
Internal Affairs Unit
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 136.
KELLY TAYLOR, Deputy Administrator
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 136.
SHARON WEDDLETON, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 136.
ROBERT PEARSON, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 136.
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor
Anchorage Office
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 136.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:05 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Johnson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 139-ALLOW SCREEN DEVICES IN UTILITY VEHICLES
8:05:43 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 139, "An Act providing for an exception to allow
drivers of public utility motor vehicles to operate those
vehicles with certain screen devices operating and visible to
the drivers."
8:05:47 AM
ALLISON LAFFEN, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 139 on behalf of Representative
Gruenberg, co-sponsor. She explained that House Bill 88, passed
during the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature, prohibits the
driver of an automobile from operating a screen device, such as
a television, video monitor, or portable computer, within
his/her view while the automobile is in motion. Exceptions were
made at the time for cell phone and Global Position System (GPS)
usage, as well as to address the needs of the Department of
Transportation regarding construction and maintenance. However,
because of an oversight, an exception was not made for public
utilities companies. The proposed legislation would correct
that oversight.
MS. LAFFEN explained the needs of the public utilities companies
by paraphrasing a portion of the sponsor statement, which read
as follows:
This legislation would provide public utilities with
similar access for maintenance, repair, or data
acquisition in order to perform their duties. As an
example, meter readers for a gas company no longer
physically exit their car to collect usage
information; instead the information is collected by
interrogating the meter as the meter reader drives
past the location. The drivers need to verify as they
drive by a home, for example, that the data is being
collected. More importantly, if there is a gas leak,
the driver will see on his screen device that there is
a problem with the line as he drives by the point of
leak. Finally, the drivers also receive messages from
police and fire departments in the case of an
emergency where a gas line would need to be shut off.
Other public utilities, as defined in AS 42.05.990,
have similar reasons for needing access to a screen
device in performance of their duties.
8:08:23 AM
PHIL STEYER, Director, Government Relations and Corporate
Communications, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), stated that
CEA has two primary uses of screen devices: to view the result
of meters being read by a radio signal; and to see the display
of a mobile mapping system. He said both those systems have
made CEA much more efficient.
8:10:05 AM
JIM POSEY, General Manager, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power,
had his testimony, in support of HB 139 and in appreciation of
the work of the committee in addressing the issue, presented by
Phil Steyer.
MR. STEYER, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the
traditional meter reader is no longer used; meters are now read
either by a van-mounted system or by a handheld device. He
illustrated the efficiency of the new system by noting that
[CEA] used to need thirteen meter readers, but now only needs
about three.
8:11:14 AM
BRIAN NEWTON, President/CEO, Golden Valley Electric Association
(GVEA), said he supports [HB 139]. He said GVEA has been using
mobile devices in its trucks for about five years and, through
the use of handheld devices, is now doing the work with five
meter readers that used to require eight. He noted that GVEA
embarked on a program to test the use of laptop [computers] in
its trucks. He explained that some of the truck operators,
especially those who do repairs, use laptops and have the
ability to see the screen as they drive. The information
displayed helps the truck operator get to the location much
quicker. He said the use of laptops is a critical means of
finding direction and becoming more efficient.
MR. NEWTON, in response Chair Lynn, said currently GVEA uses
cell phones to relay emergency information, but ultimately the
company would like to link the laptop with mobile communication,
which would enable it to receive and transmit orders from the
field remotely.
8:13:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants to ensure that the drivers
would not be using the laptop while operating the vehicle.
8:14:34 AM
MR. NEWTON said drivers would be prohibited from entering data
while driving; they would use the screen to determine location,
but stop the vehicle before entering data.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants the committee to make it
clear that that prohibition should be part of all the companies'
policies.
CHAIR LYNN said that would be the committee's recommendation,
but the committee has no power to say what goes into the
companies' manuals.
MR. NEWTON said driving while entering information would be as
dangerous as driving while "texting" on a cell phone.
8:16:18 AM
CURTIS THAYER, Director, Corporate & External Affairs, ENSTAR
Natural Gas Company ("ENSTAR"), testified in support of HB 139.
He said the passage of the bill would ensure that utility
companies are in compliance with state law. He related that
ENSTAR is a leader in using new technology to improve customer
service and hold down operating costs. The company has been
using automated meter reading for 10 years, he noted, which
provides customers with "real-time" information upon billing.
The system requires a van operator to drive through
neighborhoods at 10 miles per hour, at which time [the reader]
acquires data. Mr. Thayer reported that ENSTAR is looking to
introduce a field order system (FOS) to provide real-time
information on work orders between field personnel dispatch and
customer service. He said ENSTAR currently dispatches its
service technicians and distribution crews as a normal course of
business, which includes responding to gas leaks, fires, and
other emergency situations. He announced that ENSTAR's dispatch
response is ranked one of the best in the country, at 21 minutes
compared to the national average of 30 minutes.
MR. THAYER, in response to Representative Seaton, said ENSTAR's
company policy is that the van operator pull over before doing
any testing or data input. Meter reading, he explained involves
data being received into a terminal [inside the van] as the
driver proceeds down the street.
8:19:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the word, "information", used [on
page 2, sub-paragraphs] (F), (G), and (I), means information
coming in; it needs no further clarification.
8:19:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:20:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that some utility companies had
expressed concern regarding the issue of vehicle dispatching and
response information.
8:21:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded by referred to a letter in
the committee packet from Gerald P. Luckhaupt, Legislative
Counsel, dated March 4, 2009, which read, in part, as follows:
You have asked if the exception provided by this bill
for public "utility construction, maintenance, [or]
repair" would include dispatching and response
information for those purposes. In my opinion it
would include dispatching and response information as
well as other activities related to "utility
construction, maintenance, [or] repair."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this statement was transmitted to
the utility companies, and he stated his belief that they are
satisfied with the current language.
8:22:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that the term "data acquisition"
is a broad enough term to cover "anything they want to send to
these trucks." He said he thinks it is not necessary to amend
the language.
8:22:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that the new language [on
page 2, lines 13-15,] was drafted from language provided by Mr.
Thayer and is based upon language in [sub-paragraphs] (F), (G),
and (H).
8:23:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 139 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 139 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 136-PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTIONS
8:23:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 136, "An Act limiting the release of certain
information concerning certain public employees or officials."
[Before the committee was CSHB 136, Version 26-LS0574\R,
Luckhaupt, 2/25/09.]
8:23:58 AM
DANA STROMMEN, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, on behalf of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor, which is
chaired by Representative Ramras, discussed changes to HB 136
incorporated in Version 26-LS0574\E, Luckhaupt, 3/5/09. Ms.
Strommen indicated that Section 1 would provide that public
officer financial disclosure reports from members of boards and
commissions whose only compensation is per diem and travel
expenses would not be public record. Section 2, she indicated,
would amend AS 40.25.160 by adding a new section that would
require public agencies to withhold from public disclosure the
home address and telephone number and, in certain situations,
the name of certain law enforcement officers that may be
contained in public records. The list, she said, has been
narrowed, and would include: police officer, correctional
officer, municipal correctional officer, and parole officer.
Furthermore, Section 2, subsection (d), would include the
definition of: correctional officer, municipal correctional
officer, parole officer, police officer, public agency, and
public record.
8:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 26-LS0574\E, Luckhaupt, 3/5/09, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
8:26:20 AM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, echoed the remarks of Ms. Strommen regarding the
changes made by the committee substitute and the narrowed range
of the proposed legislation.
8:27:43 AM
MS. PIERSON, in response to Representative Seaton, said it has
been difficult to get qualified people to apply for Alaska's
boards and commissions, which are non-paying positions, and the
committee substitute would ensure that their financial data
would not be part of the public record. What would be
available, in terms of confirmations, would be the resumes,
histories, and forms filled out by those being confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised, "If it's not a public record,
and we're having a confirmation hearing, we're not going to have
access to that information, because as soon as we have access to
it, it becomes a public record, unless we're in executive
session." He questioned the purpose of filling out a financial
record if no one can have access to it other than perhaps the
attorney general.
8:29:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that Section 1 of the CS is a
response to a request he made. He said as a legislator he has
no trouble with the requirement to make in-depth financial
reports, but opined that those who serve on boards and
commissions without compensation should not be required to
report every piece of property they own and every penny they
make. The change made in Section 1 would mean that that
information would be available, but would only be [public] "if
action's taken place."
CHAIR LYNN remarked that those who serve on boards and
commissions are part of the public policy process and suggested
that the public has a right to understand "where they may be
coming from or any potential conflict of interest that they
might have."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that the public has that right,
but that does not mean they need to know what the public
persona's wife or child makes. He said it should be enough to
report that income was received from a certain company rather
than the exact details of the payment. He reiterated that the
level of scrutiny placed on these people drives them away. He
said the people he is talking about "read like a who's who of
Alaska," including bank presidents, financial leaders, doctors,
and lawyers.
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that legislators volunteer to run for
office.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concurred, but said legislators know what
they are getting into. He reiterated that "this" keeps
qualified Alaskans from wanting to get involved in government.
He said those people on boards and commissions would still have
to announce conflicts.
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Johnson if he thinks these
requirements keep some qualified people from running for the
legislature or for administrative or congressional offices.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded, "If they have something to
hide, yes, sir. And if they have something to hide, they
shouldn't be running."
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Johnson if that would not apply
to those serving on boards and commissions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered, "Not in a voluntary position."
He clarified that legislators volunteer to run for office, but
they sign up to be candidates. He added, "No one came to you
and said you have to run." He predicted that the other
committee members may not be in agreement, but he warned that
people from the boards and commissions would approach them
regarding the loss of good people. He asked, "Why would an
attorney be able to volunteer and not have to disclose anything,
where a banker volunteers and does have to disclose everything?
What's the difference?"
CHAIR SEATON suggested this is essentially the same debate as
took place during the hearing of House Bill 109 - the governor's
ethics bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that it is essentially the same,
but "raises it to those that are volunteer."
8:37:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Sharon Weddleton, the chief
financial officer for the Municipality of Anchorage, had sent an
e-mail to him [included in the committee packet], in which she
raised a lot of policy issues he said he wants to consider. He
noted that Version E eliminates "justice or judge" from the list
of those who would be allowed to request that personal
information contained in the records of a public agency be kept
confidential, and he questioned why.
8:38:56 AM
MS. PIERSON explained the removal of that language was to narrow
the scope of the bill; however, she said the bill sponsor would
not object to reinserting that language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that is a good category
to keep in the bill. He related that he has been in family law
cases when he and the judge have been threatened. He said he is
also concerned about municipal and state prosecuting attorneys
for the same reason. He said they are now being issued badges
for identification, and he asked that the bill sponsor ask for
input from the Department of Law regarding that issue.
8:40:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Version E changes peace
officer to police officer, and he suggested peace officer would
be a broader term.
8:41:23 AM
MS. STROMMEN indicated that the sponsor chose "police officer"
to narrow the scope of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Representative Johnson about two
cases wherein the Alaska Supreme Court judged a constitutional
right to privacy based not from the point of view of the
official, but from the point of view of the client. He said he
does not know if a person who comes to a banker for a loan may
have an expectation of privacy, as well. He said in the matter
of privacy rights, the legislature would be on firm legal and
constitutional grounds to consider the issue "from the
classification of the client or the customer - whether they have
a constitutional right of privacy."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Section 1 of Version E, said
he thinks there are two reasons why people might hesitate
serving [on a board or commission]: First, because they don't
want to divulge information regarding themselves or their
spouses; and second, because if they represent clients, they may
be concerned that serving may require their clients to give up
their right to privacy. He said he would probably support an
amendment that would list classes of clientele who would have
constitutionally protected rights of privacy.
8:46:35 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he understands the issue that Representative
Gruenberg has raised, but he expressed concern that the
legislation could become complicated.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks the issue could be
addressed in a manner that would not be unwieldy. He offered an
example.
8:47:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that this issue was presented to
him by various entities across the state who operate with boards
and commissions. He said he feels as passionately about this
issue as he does the issue of protecting police officers and he
"won't let one die for the other."
8:50:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested this issue be brought up in a
separate bill. He said he is concerned that some information be
required from those serving on boards and commissions in order
to determine if those people have any "close economic
relationships" and, thus, a conflict of interest in issues that
they may address. He said he is sure that is the reason that
the financial disclosure was required in the first place. He
offered his understanding that HB 136 was originally introduced
to try, for example, to "shield" some of the information and
protect police officers from criminals who may have just been
released.
CHAIR LYNN concurred. He said he thinks the main focus of the
bill is about physical protection from predators. He said he
understands Representative Johnson's concern, but is not sure it
fits in the legislation before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reemphasized his concern about
protecting clients, and he said he would like to pursue the
matter in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MS. PIERSON said she would have no problem working with
Representative Gruenberg on the issue.
8:52:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN opened public testimony.
8:53:04 AM
JOHN CYR, Executive Director, Public Safety Employees
Association (PSEA), testified in support of HB 136. He related
that over the years, with the advent of the Internet and search
engines, officers - especially those working undercover to crack
down on drugs - are being harassed and threatened all around the
state. He stated, "It is no longer uncommon for really bad
people to say to arresting officers, 'I know where you live; I
know where your wife works; I know where your kids go to
school.'" He indicated that the PSEA's intent in requesting the
bill was to [protect those officers from harm]. In response to
a question from Chair Lynn, he said clearly the focus of PSEA is
public safety, and he expressed concern that nothing be added to
the bill that would jeopardize its passage.
8:55:07 AM
MR. CYR, in response to a question from Representative Seaton,
said he is not Internet savvy enough to know exactly how much
information is "out there," but said PSEA's major concern has
been regarding the information on the assessor's tax roll list,
which he said is readily available and allows anyone to pinpoint
where officers live. He said the problem originated in
Fairbanks, where officers, during busts of some heavy
methamphetamine ("meth") dealers and meth rings, have found maps
of people's homes, their addresses, and bomb-making materials.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that he would like those in Mr.
Cyr's department who are Internet savvy to tell the committee if
there are other sources beside the assessor's roll, wherein
people could easily obtain a resident's address. He explained
that he is considering this issue from the standpoint of policy
and the responsibility that may be placed on municipalities
related to their reliability in releasing information.
MR. CYR agreed to speak with his employees and return with
information.
8:58:53 AM
JEFF LANDVATTER, Southeast Vice President, Board of Directors,
Department of Public Safety, told the committee that he is an
Alaska State Trooper with 24 years of service to the state. He
stated that peace officers need to know that their homes and
families are safe so that they can go to work and do the job
that is asked of them, and HB 136 would give those officers one
more tool to remove personal information from public view. He
said officers are trained to deal with criminals but their
families are not. Mr. Landvatter related that he has been
threatened several times, which he said gives an officer pause
to think about whether he/she is doing everything possible to
protect his/her family. He talked about the simple and quick
access to a person's address via the assessor's office
information. He indicated that the bill would not be a fix-all,
but is a good start toward stopping some information from being
readily accessible to the public.
9:01:26 AM
MR. LANDVATTER, in response to Chair Lynn, said he does not have
enough information to be able to speak to Representative
Johnson's previously stated concern; his own concern is
primarily in regard to public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited Falcon vs. Alaska Public Offices
Commission 570p 2nd 469 Alaska 1977, as focusing on the class of
patients rather than on the class of the public officials.
9:03:23 AM
MR. LANDVATTER, in response to Representative Seaton, said peace
officer is a broader term, so it would be up to the committee to
decide if it wants to include people who perhaps have a less
than full commission. He said he thinks the [judicial branch]
should speak for itself [in response to the previously noted
change of language in Version E]. He clarified that the
coverage he is seeking through his testimony is for police
officers. In response to Chair Lynn, he said he would have to
research to know if that would include Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSOs).
9:04:24 AM
ROB HUEN, Chief of Police, Anchorage Police Department,
Anchorage, Alaska, had his testimony in support of HB 136
presented by Robert Glen.
DEREK HSIEH, President, Executive Board, Anchorage Police
Department Employees' Association (APDEA), had his testimony
relating the APDEA's support of HB 136 presented by Robert Glen.
ROBERT GLEN, Sergeant, Internal Affairs Unit, said his job
involves investigation into allegations of police misconduct.
He related an incident which illustrates the importance of
protecting officers from people who are not emotionally stable.
Regarding the previously stated concern about judges and
prosecutors taken off the list, he said not only has he had his
own life and the lives of his family threatened, but he has also
seen a lot of hostility directed against prosecutors and judges
during trial - especially during sentencing. He surmised that
prosecutors and judges would have legitimate fears and concerns
related to this issue. In response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, he confirmed that he has heard of
cases in which public defenders have also been threatened.
CHAIR LYNN commented that it is possible that "everybody could
be threatened at one time or another," and he said the committee
needs to "put some sideboards on this."
9:08:26 AM
KELLY TAYLOR, Deputy Administrator, Municipality of Anchorage,
stated, "I'm speaking on my own personal behalf, and also
representing the thoughts and concerns for Marty McGee who's the
municipal assessor here."
MS. TAYLOR said the intent of the proposed legislation is good,
and she said she can certainly understand the concerns of those
who have testified. However, she explained that the concern of
her office and that of the assessor's office is regarding the
narrowing of scope to cover only the property appraisal and tax
web site. Ms. Taylor related that the information that is
provided on the municipal assessor's web site in Anchorage is an
exact replication of the information that is provided from the
State Recorder's Office. That means, she explained, that
however a property owner's title is recorded by the State of
Alaska, it will be presented exactly the same way in the
municipal assessor's database. She stated, "The purpose of the
real property recording system is to provide constructive notice
of the existence of any interest of real property in Anchorage."
MS. TAYLOR indicated that her experience as a homeowner has
taught her that the idea of privacy in ownership is an illusion.
She indicated that there are many web sites that a person could
use other than that of the assessor to find out where someone
lives. She said there are many privately owned web sites that
"redistribute information." She reiterated that the original
site of the source of that information is from the State
Recorder's Office. She opined that individuals with a
heightened need for privacy should be encouraged to put their
property into a trust or limited liability corporation or "some
other fashion" before recording it with the State Recorder's
Office, in order that there be no association between their
personal name and a specific piece of property.
MS. TAYLOR concluded, "We strongly request that the bill be
amended to prohibit the release of the home address, the
telephone number of a person who is eligible and applies for
confidentiality along with the name." She noted that in an e-
mail, Ms. Weddleton has suggested annual maintenance and proof
if the choice is made for the assessor to be responsible for
maintaining the confidentiality of an individual.
9:13:01 AM
MS. TAYLOR, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Seaton, stated her understanding that the base of
information on the assessor's web site is derived from the State
of Alaska. She related that the assessor's office receives a
disc weekly that contains all the public documents that are
recorded. The municipal staff then looks through that
information and pulls out quick claim deeds or warranty deeds to
track the change of ownership of a piece of property. In
response to a follow-up question, she said the assessor's
database will reveal the information that is recorded on the
deed or ownership record of a specific piece of property. In a
case where 38 names were associated with a trust, for example,
the assessor's office would only list the first couple of names
because of "the field constriction."
9:15:07 AM
SHARON WEDDLETON, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Municipality of
Anchorage, noted that she had testified at the prior hearing on
HB 136. She stated that the Municipality of Anchorage will
support the concept of the bill if it can be "amended properly."
Upon the chair's invitation, she listed the amendments that the
municipality would like to see. First, she said, would be an
amendment to include only property tax web sites. Second, would
be an amendment to prohibit the release of a name concurrent
with the address of a police officer who desires protection,
which would still allow the property tax web site to show the
property, its assessed value, and its tax history, without
showing the name. She said that would offer a better balance
between the public's right to information and the police
officer's right to protect him/herself and his/her family. She
noted that a pseudonym could be used. Third, would be an
amendment to change the current requirement of municipalities,
cities, and boroughs to provide daily updates related to
applications for confidentiality on their property tax web sites
to a more reasonable requirement of updating either quarterly or
annually. Last, would be an amendment providing that those
municipalities, cities, and boroughs that make fair and
reasonable attempts to maintain the confidentiality of police
officers would be held harmless in the event that an
administrative error caused a name to erroneously be displayed.
9:17:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed his desire not to hold the bill back, but
instead to address those proposed changes in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
9:18:45 AM
MS. WEDDLETON, in response to Representative Petersen, said the
pseudonym would need to blend in to the list; John or Jane Doe
would probably draw more attention to the property than leaving
the original name. She explained that the municipality would
most likely keep a paper list showing both the officer's name
and the pseudonym being used on the web site. She said this
would allow public disclosure of properties owned.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if not listing someone's name on a
property list would create problems such as creditors not being
able to find the person.
MS. WEDDLETON said she does not know the answer to that
question, but she related that she would be more concerned about
protecting police from harm than about getting in the way of a
creditor.
9:21:29 AM
MS. WEDDLETON, in response to Representative Seaton, said the
pseudonym would be used only for listing the person's primary
residence.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted another issue that had been brought
to light was concerning the use of [a pseudonym] in the State
Recorder's Office. He asked, "Does that also get to the same
point?"
MS. WEDDLETON answered, "I believe it would achieve the same
objective."
9:22:51 AM
ROBERT PEARSON, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
said he could not offer much comment on the provisions of
Version E without further study. However, he said the
department would have no problem developing the forms that would
be used to apply for confidentiality and distributing the
protected names to the applicable parties.
Representative Seaton directed attention to language [on page 1,
beginning on line 12, which read as follows]:
A public agency may not release the portions of a
public record that include the home address or
telephone number of a person who is eligible for
confidentiality
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that language is not limited to the
assessor's office, but also includes the databases used by the
Division of Motor Vehicles and the Division of Sport Fishing to
issue licenses. He asked Mr. Pearson if he has considered which
databases in which departments would be affected by the bill.
He clarified that he wants to know if the inclusion of "or
telephone number" would significantly expand the number of
agencies that would have to undergo some change from present
practices.
9:26:13 AM
MR. PEARSON said the Department of Administration would not be
affected because it does not release telephone numbers in the
course of business. He said he cannot speak for other
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed the same interest regarding the
inclusion of "home address". He said he assumes that would
affect the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, for example. He asked
Mr. Pearson to comment.
MR. PEARSON agreed that ADF&G would be affected. He said within
the Department of Administration, there is the Division of
Personnel, but the information therein is not public and would
not be released under current law. He said although driver's
licenses can have mailing addresses listed on them, vehicles are
identified with a physical address. He said, "That would be
something that would be affected by this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "How would you see this form being
used by DOT to not allow access to the DOT permit database?"
9:29:39 AM
MR. PEARSON responded:
I think that what we would have to do is collect this
form and develop a list of all departments that are
affected by this bill, and then just routinely, when a
new form was filed, distribute a copy to all
departments. ... During that process, we would
identify all of the potentially affected information,
and we would make sure that copies of this form were
distributed to all of the relevant departments.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the administration has an opinion
regarding the timing of the removal of the material from
databases.
9:30:50 AM
MR. PEARSON said he has not considered that issue. He said the
information would still be on databases; it just would not be
released to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the bill
would require each agency to "scrub" confidential information on
its database from public view.
9:33:35 AM
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor, Anchorage Office, Division of
Community and Regional Affairs, confirmed Ms. Taylor's remarks
that the information in the municipal assessor's database is
derived from the State Recorder's Office. He said, "We
certainly want to see the officers protected, too, but I just
don't feel like we're doing a service to them by saying, 'We're
going to give you peace of mind by blocking the assessor's
office,' when we can go back door through the Recorder's Office
and get the same information that the assessor has." He
indicated that it would make more sense to show officers "how
they could change their names, put it in trust, whatever, when
they got the property or took the job."
9:35:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:35:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, to remove
Section 1 from Version E. [Section 1 read as follows:]
*Section 1. AS 39.50.050(c) is amended to read:
(c) Reports filed under this chapter shall be
kept on file for at least six years and are public
records except that a report received from a member of
a state board or commission whose only compensation as
a member of that board or commission is per diem and
travel expenses under AS 39.20.180 is not a public
record.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He said he thinks the issue
has been recently related and that when the administration,
municipalities, and boards and commissions understand the issue,
there will be more feedback regarding it. He said he expects
the issue to come up in the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
as well as during House and Senate floor discussions. He said
if the House State Affairs Standing Committee is going to move
the bill forward and allow the House Judiciary Standing
Committee fix it, he thinks [Amendment 1] should be forwarded
with that same consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Amendment 1 is within the purview of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee. He expressed
concern regarding those who would be exempted by Section 1. He
said there is nothing written about conflict of interest
disclosure. He added, "That is the financial disclosure; that
is what conflict of interests are." He said there were
consultants getting paid large amounts of money, who did not
have to disclose that they were making the regulation ... for
the industry. He said, "If a municipality is coming to us and
saying that we need to change this, they're saying that their
citizens will not agree to removing themselves from this ethical
and financial conflict, and they want us to do it for them,
because their citizens will not allow that." Representative
Seaton stated that he wants to remove the municipalities'
consideration from this since the option exists for
municipalities to exempt themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, "This is the entire basis -
disclosure. I mean, we will not have this information; we will
not know when we have a confirmation hearing. He said once a
legislative office receives "the information," it is public
information. Therefore, "by making this confidential
information, we will not have this as well." He continued:
And so, the idea that somehow we're going to hold this
in secret among ourselves, unless we're having an
executive session, ... I don't think that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his belief that every board and
commission member being appointed now knows the law. He/she may
or may not wish to volunteer based on what must be disclosed.
Representative Seaton said, "We're only talking really about
state boards and commissions, and they form the policy and
regulations. Every elected or appointed board, we've got to
remember that their regulation comes through, and as long as
they're legal, as long as they don't violate the law, the
lieutenant only puts a time stamp on that regulation. [He/she]
... would have no ability to modify or reject those
regulations." He said without financial disclosure, conflicts
of interest will "come back to bite ... the entire state" in
terms of making policy.
9:41:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is less inclined to withdraw his
objection upon hearing that "this is only ... to be the purview
of the" House State Affairs Standing Committee. He said he does
not recall ever seeing financial information during confirmation
hearings. The language in the bill does not say that a person
would not still have to declare a conflict. He stated that
"what this says" is that the written financial disclosure report
that is submitted should not be made public. He said he would
"point that out" to the municipal assembly people and the people
who appoint boards and municipalities who have been contacting
him. He reiterated that he is not opposed to full disclosure by
anyone serving in a position, he just does not want that
information made public automatically. He added, "It's very
much like when we have an ethics complaint: it is private until
such time as it's needed."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
9:43:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Amendment 1 for discussion
purposes. He noted that his office has had occasion to access
financial information [on line]. He reiterated his concern
about protecting constitutional right to privacy of certain
classes of clients, a subject which he said is directly within
the purview of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He
stated his intention to pursue the issue with the bill sponsor.
He said the bill contains many issues and will have a dramatic
effect throughout state and local government, and he said he is
willing to work on the issues in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee or in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1.
9:46:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he agrees with the proposal to
remove Section 1 and address it in separate legislation. With
that section gone, he said, there still will be a lot of work to
do on HB 136. He expressed concern that the sponsor of the bill
is the chair of the next committee of referral - the House
Judiciary Standing Committee - and he wants to ensure that the
bill does not "slide through there without a lot of
improvement."
CHAIR LYNN expressed his desire that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee consider protection of prosecutors and
defense attorneys. He commented that being a judge is a
dangerous job.
9:48:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that before the bill is sent
over to the Senate for its consideration, the title should be
amended to include mention of "the exact people we're trying to
cover."
CHAIR LYNN said he agrees.
9:49:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:49:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 2, to amend the
bill so that the release of the name, residential address, or
telephone number would not be released concurrently or
conjoined.
9:50:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
said he would like the amendment offered in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee in a less vague manner.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that there has been testimony
stating that the releasing of the name attached to resident
information is a problem, and it would be much more expensive
and difficult if the municipalities had to omit certain
residents from the tax rolls entirely. He said, "If this is
such that they can't release any of the tax roll information,
then all of a sudden we form a huge problem for the
municipalities in which they're going to have partial tax
rolls." Representative Seaton said that is not the purpose of
the bill. The purpose, he emphasized, is not to attach tax roll
information to the person requesting confidentiality.
9:52:03 AM
MS. PEARSON directed attention to language on page 2, lines 2-3,
[of Version E], which read, "the name of a person who is
eligible for confidentiality under (b) of this section and has
applied for confidentiality as provided in (c) of this section,
may not be disclosed." She offered her understanding that the
address would still be part of the data base and would be public
information.
9:52:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said if the sponsor thinks that language
addresses the issue, he would be willing to withdraw Conceptual
Amendment 2 and ask that the sponsor check with those who
submitted the idea for the amendment between now and the bill
hearing in the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not know if the amendment
is needed or not, but reiterated his willingness to work with
the sponsor.
9:53:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
9:54:17 AM
MS. PEARSON, in response to Representative Seaton, said she has
been thinking about the issue of municipalities updating
records, and while she does not think a quarterly update
requirement would be bad, in the case where someone is being
threatened and there is present danger, waiting a year would not
be a good idea. She expressed her willingness to work with
those involved to find a good balance for the requirement.
9:54:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he is content to know that
the sponsor will address the issue.
9:55:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned the change from peace officer
to police officer, when the former has a broader scope than the
latter.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 01.10.060(h)(7) as defining
peace officer and AS 18.65.290(7) - which is referenced in the
bill - as defining police officer. He directed attention to the
notes of the latter statute, which states that all police
officers are peace officers, but some police officers - such as
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) - are not police
officers. He said presumably, anyone who lives in a little
village would already know where the VPSO lives. He said he
thinks this is an issue that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee needs to address.
9:56:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHB 136, Version 26-
LS0574\E, Luckhaupt, 3/5/09, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 136(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:57:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the upcoming committee calendar.
9:58:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:58
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HSTA - HB0139A.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 02 HSTA - HB 139 Sponsor statement.doc |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 03 HSTA - Westlaw HB 139 AS49 05 990.rtf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 04 HSTA HB 139 SLA Laws - HB0088Z.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 HB 139 |
| 05 HSTA - HB139-DPS-DET-03-05-09.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 06 HSTA - HB 139 Additional Backup Memo - Legal Letter - Enstar.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| HSTA -3-5-09 CS HB136 ver E 3 6 09.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |
| HB136 3-9-09 Updated Sponsor Statement.doc |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |
| HB136CS(STA)- DNR SSD 02-27-09.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |