Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/21/2002 08:04 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
March 21, 2002
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Relating to declaring April 6, 2002, as Alaska Tartan Day.
- MOVED SCR 23 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 426
"An Act requiring state agencies to provide for electronic
submission of forms and relating to annual reports of state
agencies."
- MOVED HB 426 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 297
"An Act moving employees of the Alaska mental health trust land
unit of the Department of Natural Resources from the partially
exempt service to the exempt service."
- MOVED SB 297 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act requiring a single insurance provider for all state
employees and allowing small employers to join as a group; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 397
"An Act exempting a person driving a snowmobile from driver
licensing requirements."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 483
"An Act authorizing state procurement of group insurance for
employees of child care facilities, entities licensed as
residential child care facilities, child placement agencies,
foster homes, and maternity houses, and certain adult
residential and day services providers, and for employees of
certain nonprofit entities; repealing a provision of the state
group insurance procurement law relating to payment of dividends
and clarifying a provision of that law relating to part-time
employees; authorizing the commissioner of administration to
adopt regulations regarding state procurement of group
insurance; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SCR 23
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA TARTAN DAY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2083 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2083 (S) STA
02/19/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/19/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
02/20/02 2258 (S) STA RPT 3DP
02/20/02 2258 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
STEVENS
02/20/02 2258 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
02/21/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/21/02 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to
2/22/02 --
02/22/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/25/02 2299 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/25/02
02/25/02 2301 (S) HELD TO 2/27 CALENDAR
02/27/02 2322 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/27/02 2322 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
02/27/02 2322 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, GREEN,
STEVENS,
02/27/02 2322 (S) WARD
02/27/02 2326 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/02 2326 (S) VERSION: SCR 23
03/01/02 2426 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/01/02 2426 (H) STA
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 426
SHORT TITLE:STATE AGENCY REPORTS/ELECTRONIC FORMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2246 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2246 (H) STA
03/19/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/19/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 297
SHORT TITLE:MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND UNIT EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2227 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2228 (S) STA
02/28/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/28/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
03/01/02 2339 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
STEVENS,
03/01/02 2339 (S) DAVIS
03/01/02 2339 (S) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
03/01/02 2339 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/05/02 (S) RLS AT 10:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/05/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/06/02 2393 (S) VERSION: SB 297
03/06/02 2390 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/06/02 2390 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/06/02 2390 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 297
03/06/02 2390 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E2 A1
03/06/02 2393 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/06/02 2388 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/6/02
03/15/02 2538 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/15/02 2538 (H) STA
03/19/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/19/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PHELAN STRAUBE, Staff
to Senator Randy Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding SCR 23, on behalf of
the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 426.
JUSTIN CARRO, Intern
to Representative Lancaster
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor
regarding HB 426.
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst
Office of the Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
PO Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
administration in support of the overall goal of supporting
paper forms to electronic forms, in regard to HB 426.
ANDY KLEIN
Information Technology Group (ITG)
Department of Administration
PO Box 110206
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0206
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 426.
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
to Senator Gary Wilken
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor
regarding SB 297.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives James,
Fate, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill were present at the call to
order. Representatives Crawford and Hayes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SCR 23-ALASKA TARTAN DAY
Number 0260
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business was
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Relating to declaring April
6, 2002, as Alaska Tartan Day.
Number 0273
PHELAN STRAUBE, Staff to Senator Randy Phillips, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of SCR 23, who
was out of town.
CHAIR COGHILL said [the subject] was straightforward and asked
Mr. Straube if he would explain the reason for the resolution.
Number 0323
MR. STRAUBE told the committee that this proposed resolution
seeks to honor Americans with Scottish decent in Alaska, [by
declaring] April 6, 2002 as "Tartan Day." He noted that April 6
is significant to people of Scottish decent; it is the day that
the Scottish declaration of independence was signed. Mr.
Straube said many people believe that the framers of the United
States Constitution took the Scottish declaration of
independence "into consideration."
MR. STRAUBE told the committee that, basically, the resolution
requests that the governor proclaim April 6, 2002 as "Alaska
Tartan Day." He indicated that there is an accompanying zero
fiscal note.
Number 0402
CHAIR COGHILL noted that [the sponsor] had listed [those
legislators] with Scottish decent [available in the committee
packet].
Number 0460
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that her name appeared on the list
because of her husband, whose parents were both of Scottish
decent.
CHAIR COGHILL said there is a celebration in Anchorage - "the
highland group puts together a pretty good-sized shindig." This
resolution requests the governor to have a proclamation read at
that gathering.
Number 0518
MR. STRAUBE noted that this summer, in Eagle River, the Alaska
Highland Games will again take place, an event which is popular
with locals and tourists, alike.
Number 0526
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SCR 23 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected to point out that his name was not
included on the aforementioned list, then removed his objection.
He announced, "I want you to know that I have the Macbeth
tartan."
Number 0586
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Straube for bringing this resolution
before the committee. He said he thought he had "spoke to this
on the floor last time," and would welcome the privilege to do
so again. [There being no objection, SCR 23 was reported from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.]
HB 426-STATE AGENCY REPORTS/ELECTRONIC FORMS
Number 0643
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 426, "An Act requiring state agencies to provide
for electronic submission of forms and relating to annual
reports of state agencies."
Number 0660
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, noted
that his intern, Justin Carro worked on HB 426, as a project of
his class at [the University of Alaska, Southeast]. He stated
that he agrees with the attempt to "get the submissions for
forms onto the computer and save time, and trees, and money,
hopefully, in the end, regardless of what the attached fiscal
note may show, or represent." He reminded the committee that
this has been done in many departments already; it is not new to
[the system], but is a more formal way to approach it.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER stated that eliminating government
waste is probably the single-most important issue that
legislators are charged to deal with. Alaskans "from all walks
of life" are concerned with government inefficiency, he said.
He defined the bill as, essentially, an efficiency and cost-
saving measure. Many departments have already established
electronic forms. He indicated programs that have repeatedly
shown the savings associated with the use of technology. For
example, he noted that the Department of Fish & Game has
installed a program for their permits, which costs $90,000 "for
set-up," which saves the department $87,000, annually.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said, "In these times of critical
fiscal situations we must do what we can to eliminate waste from
the system. It is this type of 'fat trimming' that the public
desires and expects." He expressed that, in all fairness,
[legislators] cannot claim to be caretakers of the state,
determining what is fiscally right, and expect the people of the
state to give up their dividends and pay taxes, when measures
like this are not put into place to save government waste.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER concluded that this [proposed]
legislation is designed "to not only save us money." Indicating
the attached fiscal note, he added: "We were supposed to hear
this, I think, a couple of days ago at eight in the morning, and
I got this at 7:30 the evening before."
Number 0825
CHAIR COGHILL said the bill did carry a significant fiscal note.
Number 0831
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered an "indirect comment." She said
she was appalled and referenced the first page of the fiscal
note [from the Department of Administration, dated 3/18/2002],
which read as follows:
A conservative estimate on converting a simple form to
an online system is $7,500 per application. DHSS has
estimated it has over 800 forms; the estimated cost to
convert these business processes to an online format
is about $6 million scheduled over a 6-year period.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "If they've got that many, then they
better start figuring out how they can combine some of it."
Number 0873
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would like to "piggyback" on
Representative Wilson's comment. She stated that it is
absolutely true that working with Alaska state government is the
most difficult thing to do. She said this bill would not change
that. The way to do so, she described, is to have an
administration willing to look for "efficiencies" and willing to
battle with the union "on the rejection of the number of jobs."
She indicated that she understands that it is a big battle, but
"if we're ever going to get our fiscal house in order, we need
to go there."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she supports HB 426 and thinks it is
embarrassing that it is necessary at all. She noted that she
discounts the fiscal note, and she referred to language on the
[second] page of the fiscal note, which read as follows:
This bill provides exemptions if converting forms to
electronic format would be "technically infeasible or
fiscally irresponsible", based on an analysis of the
life-cycle costs and benefits of the conversion.
Conducting this type of analysis for thousands of
forms and processing exemption requests would be very
time consuming and would not be an effective use of
state resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, in conclusion, stated that she supports HB
426 and is not scared of the fiscal note; the House Finance
Standing Committee can decide what happens to it.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that the fiscal note includes the
word "paperless" and asked Representative Lancaster if he was
"talking about paperless systems here."
Number 1050
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER answered that, in some cases, there
would be paperless transactions, since much of the information
could be saved to disks. He mentioned his real estate broker
closing transactions with electronic signatures.
Number 1089
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that this certainly would [bring
about] a paper reduction, and a postage reduction, and perhaps
gasoline reduction. She said, "We're going to be going there,
whether we put a piece of legislation forward, or not. And this
just gives it a little nudge, I believe." Necessary
transactions can be kept on disk, she added.
Number 1151
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recounted a story of "when she first came
here" in 1993 and she witnessed the use of Xerox machines and
boxes for recycling and thought that it was really ridiculous
that so much paper was used. She proffered that in the future,
[legislators] may have computers in front of them and, when an
amendment is offered during a hearing, they would be able to
look at it, without having to receive a printed copy.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned meeting an "insurance person"
while she was running [for office] in 1992, who told her that,
in order to get his license, he had to have 11 original
notarized copies. She indicated that she had objected and had
surmised that one original copy would have sufficed, with notice
via computer that it was available. She said, "Did I get
anywhere on that? No, [I] didn't."
Number 1248
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that people, in general, are
resistant to change and, specifically, all administrations are
going to be resistant to change. She told the committee that
her father and her maternal grandmother informed her early in
life that "if you're going to be successful in this life, you
need to be on the cusp of change, and know what change is going
to be, before you get there."
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out that the problem,
particularly with the fiscal note, is that [the Department of
Administration] had no discussion with his office and the fiscal
note showed up on the computer late on the evening before [the
bill was to be heard]. He said he thinks what is seen in the
state departments - which he credited Representative James for
having alluded to - is that every department and division is
working separately from the other, "like they're in a whole
different world."
CHAIR COGHILL said he supposed that the legislature has
witnessed that, because it deals with so many [departments].
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented that this is a good bill and he
felt compelled to "piggyback" on the previous remarks of
Representative James. He said, "We're looking for, not only
efficiencies, but we're looking into entering into an area that
is amenable to missions and measures, for example." He
indicated that the move to that area was already underway. For
example, he noted that [each legislator] had received an iPAQ
[handheld computer]. He said this [proposed legislation]
"facilitates going into that area, without anything being
hidden." Representative Fate warned: "If we do this piecemeal
and don't have this type of legislation, it's so easy to hide
personnel, or equipment, or anything else in ... either other
pieces of legislation, or just, in their own budget." He
mentioned Representative James's comments about the paper
reduction. He concluded: "I don't see how they came up with
this fiscal note, especially since we have language in here that
guards, really, against it."
Number 1407
CHAIR COGHILL commented that he would like to get to that
language.
Number 1410
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that there is a resistance by "this
administration," partly because the people who are resisting are
the people who are connected to the paycheck. She said the
public is continually incensed when "they see the employees
doing something that is not really productive at that time."
Regarding the private sector, Representative James said that the
oil industry, for example, has recently taken a look at its
issues [regarding redundancy and efficiency]. Because that
industry's spending was more than its revenue, it laid people
off, which is not something that happens "in the state," for
many reasons, she noted. Furthermore, "If you do lay the people
off, you lay off the people who are doing the work that
everybody sees, not the work that nobody sees."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked: "Do we want to go in this
direction?" She stated her belief that "we" can be more
effective, over the long term, at less cost. She spoke of
people getting a reasonable wage for the work they do, rather
than working under what she considers to be a living wage.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated his belief that it is inevitable
that "we are moving toward this," and that it is wise to move
[the proposed legislation] ahead. He recalled when he used to
work at the university and people were "thrown into turmoil"
when they received a form that could not be done on the
computer, and they had to find a typewriter. He said that he is
pleased to be moving ahead with [the proposed legislation] and
that it appears that the fiscal note was just "throwing some
sand in the gears and slowing things down."
CHAIR COGHILL said he did not know that it was throwing sand in
the gears. Rather, it was probably "lifting the discussion."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she had spoken with a person who
works for the state and was questioning why it was necessary to
have a Xerox machine in every office. Representative James
suggested that if printers were used instead, the expensive
Xerox machines could be omitted.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said that it is important to note that
the Department of Fish & Game will be saving [the state] an
incredible amount of money, now that its system is in place. He
said, "Once we get these in place, the administration,
hopefully, will change their attitude and receptiveness to
something like this. Nobody's trying to shove this down their
throat - we're trying to send a message."
Number 1660
CHAIR COGHILL noted for the record that Representative Hayes had
joined the meeting in progress. He mentioned "fiscally
irresponsible" and "technically infeasible" and asked
Representative Lancaster to explain how he came to that wording.
He said, "'Now you can't do that' needs to be answered."
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER deferred the question to his intern.
Number 1650
JUSTIN CARRO, Intern to Representative Lancaster, Alaska State
Legislature, explained as follows: "The reason we didn't define
that is because I'm not a computer genius either." He said the
people in the Department of Administration were put in charge of
giving the exemptions and, hopefully, they will put the ITG
group in charge, because it is knowledgeable about computers.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised: "Certainly, given some of the question
marks that we might have on this administration, certainly they
have come up with some protocol of what's feasible, or what's
not feasible. It would be kind of interesting for me, as a
committee man, to see what they're thinking about when they say
that."
Number 1702
MR. CARRO said blueprints, for example, would be difficult to
submit online. He mentioned a catchall for those types of
things and anything unforeseen regarding [not] being able to
read [forms or other documents] on a computer.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER indicated that the previous mention of
DEC triggered his brain. He said he thinks the two go together
- the "fiscally" and the "technically". They may flow together
at some point, he added.
Number 1749
CHAIR COGHILL said there has to be that safety valve. He told
[the sponsor] that he described what was fiscally responsible
fairly well in this, while [the subject of "fiscally
irresponsible"] was "left dangling."
Number 1790
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst, Office of the Director, Office
of Management & Budget, Office of the Governor, stated that the
administration fully supports the overall goal of converting
paper forms to electronic forms. He cited the following
examples of forms and notices that the administration has
already converted: permanent fund dividend (PFD) applications,
motor vehicle registration, fishing and hunting licenses, the
online public notice system, and the fiscal note presently
before the committee.
Number 1836
MR. KREINHEDER said that while the administration supports the
overall goal, it has a problem with the "blanket," or "shotgun"
approach, whereby all of the thousands of forms used by the
state would have to be converted. Even with the exemption for
forms which are "fiscally irresponsible", or "technically
infeasible", the process alone of having to apply for those
exemptions and conduct a study to ascertain whether those forms
would save money [would be involved].
Number 1873
MR. KREINHEDER told the committee that this plan would save
money over time, but that there are insufficient staff and
resources to convert the several thousand forms. He stated that
what really needs to be done is to choose which forms are high
priority, for example, fish and game licenses and motor vehicle
registrations; those forms most heavily used by the public. He
also mentioned that the fiscal note had asterisks [on the
"total" line] versus [an amount], and he said it was just a
ballpark estimate.
Number 1923
MR. KREINHEDER asked the committee members to imagine that their
assignment was to take any type of paper-based form and design a
database for that form, set up the database and, additionally,
decide how that information could be processed more efficiently.
He said that is not an assignment that could be completed in a
day or two, but would take weeks and, in some cases, months of
work.
Number 1951
MR. KREINHEDER reiterated the administration's support of the
concept of the bill and restated its view that applying [this
measure] to all of the forms and having to go through the
exemption process would be counterproductive. He indicated that
that exemption process would involve the Department of
Administration. He noted that, in a way, the bill was geared
toward streamlining government by moving to electronic
processes, but, as written, would actually be an "anti-
streamlining measure."
Number 1993
MR. KREINHEDER suggested the following changes: examine forms
used by agencies; prioritize the ones that could most cost-
effectively be converted to electronic form; and work with the
departments on a consistent form "interface," or "engine," so
that all of the departments are using similar software. A plan
such as that would direct the Department of Administration to
set priorities, while tackling the problem.
Number 2055
CHAIR COGHILL noted that what Mr. Kreinheder suggested was a
type of template bill, that would set a pattern of conversion.
[MR. KREINHEDER nodded.]
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told Mr. Kreinheder that she thought what
he was asking for would have a fiscal note, because it "tells
you specifically what we want you to do." She said, "I think
this just tells you, 'you shall provide'." It doesn't specify a
date, just indicates a direction to follow, she added.
Furthermore, she assumed that that could be done within the
current budget available. She indicated that this has been
done, somewhat, over the years, with driver's licenses, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she did not agree with Mr.
Kreinheder's description of the trouble involved in getting
exempted. She said, "I think what we meant is, 'If this doesn't
work, you're exempted'." She told Mr. Kreinheder that it seemed
to her that he was saying, "We can't do this by next year." She
said there would not necessarily be an expectation that it be
done next year; conversely, this would just be a direction from
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reminded Mr. Kreinheder of her previous
testimony, when she had expressed that it is difficult for an
administration to do that; it is difficult to have people
working on a system that may cause them to lose their job.
Notwithstanding that, Representative James said that in a state
looking to spend less money for more efficient services, "I
think we have to go there." She asked for a response.
Number 2177
MR. KREINHEDER answered that Representative James was correct
that there is no timeframe in the bill; however, he indicated a
literal reading of the bill [Page 1, Lines 5-8, which read, as
follows]:
A state agency shall provide for the electronic
submission of all forms used by the agency, whether
the forms are submitted to the agency by other persons
or used only within the agency itself.
MR. KREINHEDER next referred to [Page 1, Lines 10-13], which
read, as follows:
The department of administration may exempt a form
used by an agency of the executive branch from the
requirement of (a) of this section if the department
finds that providing for electronic submission of the
form would be technically infeasible or fiscally
irresponsible.
MR. KREINHEDER described his perspective to Representative
James: He outlined a possible future scenario, whereby HB 426
has passed and the legislature asks the administration how it is
doing in regard to the bill. The administration responds that
it has converted another 20 to 50 forms to electronic
processing, but has not yet addressed the other 4,970 forms. At
that point, he noted, the legislature could rightfully say,
"Have you got a waiver for those? What's you're status on
those?" Mr. Kreinheder said [the present language of the bill]
puts the administration in a situation where it may technically
be in noncompliance with the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she did not read the language of the
bill the same way. After two years, if the administration had a
sizeable amount of [conversions] done, she said, from her
perspective, she would say, "This is working."
Number 2280
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that Mr. Kreinheder had previously
mentioned the "study-time" involved. He said to him and to Mr.
Kline: "It would seem to me like you should have almost
everything that's required, at your fingertips, to determine
whether or not you're capable of doing this." He said he didn't
think it required a protracted study. Representative Fate said
he had run an office that was "equipment-intensive and capital-
intensive," and he could say exactly where everything was in
that office, as well as "what the forms were into the
insurance," without requiring a long time to study. He said he
would only take time to determine the feasibility, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE addressed Mr. Kline directly regarding the
technicality of converting forms. Returning to his
aforementioned comments, he asked, "Do you, or do you not, have
these things at your fingertips?"
Number 2358
MR. KREINHEDER responded that the question was a difficult one
to answer. He clarified that when he had talked about doing a
study and "jumping through these hoops," he had been referring
to the exemption process, rather than to the conversion from
paper form to electronic form. As a follow-up to Representative
James's question, Mr. Kreinheder said the state uses several
thousand forms. Furthermore, with regard to using existing
resources without dumping millions of dollars into a "fast-track
process" to do the conversions, he stated his own feeling that,
over the next three to five years, it probably makes sense to
only convert a limited number of those [forms]. Some forms are
used so infrequently, he noted, that it would not make sense to
convert them. He reiterated that the bill would require
conversion, unless an exemption is obtained from the Department
of Administration, which he said is a "make-work process that we
want to avoid."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said, "I never did find out whether you had
those things at your fingertips." In response to a request for
clarification from Mr. Kreinheder, he explained he was referring
to the data, or equipment required to make those conversions.
MR. KREINHEDER replied that, in some cases, the answer is no.
He indicated that paper forms may get stuck in a file or move up
a chain for further approval. He noted that, in most cases, the
department does not have a database for that program; it
probably has a license for the software, but may or may not have
computers with the capabilities necessary to run it. He
reiterated that it would not be an easy or quick process to
convert all the forms.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated his aforementioned question to
Mr. Klein.
Number 2489
ANDY KLEIN, Information Technology Group (ITG), Department of
Administration, mentioned a two-part answer and offered the
following example: Presently, the department is working with
the permanent fund division on a conceptual phase of an entirely
online submittal of the PFD form for next year. This year the
form is available online, but the applicant still has to sign
the form and send it in. Mr. Klein indicated that digital
legislation has been in place for a couple of years. [To offer
that capability to the applicant] will require the department to
have an "authentication module" in place, which verifies that
the person applying is actually who he or she claims to be, and
is not applying for someone else's PFD.
MR. KLEIN said that the department has to deal with vendors of
both hardware and software, consultants, PFD staff, and its own
staff. The software alone can cost between $500,000 to
$900,000; it's a large piece of software, required to do a
variety of things. He said it is licensed on a "per-user
basis," so the department could possibly "end up getting dinged
for every citizen in the State of Alaska." Mr. Klein told the
committee that ITG is comprised of a very competent staff that
has the expertise to do this. Regarding some of the software,
the department has agreements with one of the companies and may
be able to get a break on pricing; however, it will probably
have to buy some software, specifically for this project, he
said. Once this project is done, the department will be able to
use the same process again on other forms. He mentioned being
located centrally and trying to get that efficiency.
Number 2606
MR. KLEIN said the department has the data, presently, to decide
which forms are feasible now and how to proceed; however,
"implementing those has a cost associated with that." He
concluded: "The State is a large organization. There's a lot
of times we're going to have to look at that over and over again
to see how to ... best go about doing different procedures in
the state."
Number 2627
CHAIR COGHILL announced that he would allow another five minutes
for questions and then would ask the committee if it would like
to act on the bill with the present information, or continue
with the discussion.
Number 2649
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said it seemed to him that the
technological infrastructure in the State of Alaska is not good.
He asked how current in technology are most of the departments.
He mentioned hearing from one department, for example, that its
computers are not up-to-date and, therefore, it cannot provide
certain information. Representative Hayes said he assumed that
the problem was a statewide one, across all agencies, because
the money is not invested in the state's technological
infrastructure, the same as it isn't invested in the state's
deferred maintenance.
Number 2704
MR. KREINHEDER said the short answer is no. He said there would
be a number of cases where agencies have computers that are
several years old and won't run current versions of software.
He deferred the question to Mr. Klein for further response.
Number 2715
MR. KLEIN said he thinks that many of these things would
ultimately be implemented through some type of centralized
agency, with, hopefully, applications housed at a central
location. He expressed that one of the department's concerns is
that this proposed bill would encourage "build-out" of what is
called "'stovepipes' - everyone doing the form in their own way,
housing it in their way, on their own equipment, whether it's
good or bad, because they have the mandate of doing it, and they
want to get that done." He said that the department is in the
middle of doing a statewide ITG plan, in hopes of encouraging
centralization of those resources, when appropriate.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected that this issue probably warranted
further discussion.
Number 2764
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if this bill would require those
people who do not have access to, or do not wish to use, a
computer, to turn in forms electronically.
MR. KREINHEDER replied that he did not see the bill as "banning"
paper submission of forms. He asked Representative Crawford for
further clarification.
Number 2816
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he did not see the issue addressed
in the bill and, therefore, did not know how it would be
treated.
CHAIR COGHILL said he thought that the bill would require
another type of submission, without precluding or changing the
use of paper.
MR. KREINHEDER said, if Representative Crawford's question asked
whether the bill would require people to use electronic
submission, the answer is no. He proffered that the concern of
the administration is that the bill is a simplistic solution to
a complex problem. He offered the analogy that it is a good
idea for students to get straight A's, but said he thought that
"we" would all agree that the legislature's passing a bill
requiring all students to get straight A's would not be
accessible.
Number 2875
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested this discussion could continue
all day, but she did not think it would progress further either
way. She indicated putting forth a direction in which to go and
mentioned all these things being a part of the process. She
said that she appreciates Mr. Klein's concerns regarding getting
everybody on the same system, an issue which has been an
existing problem. Furthermore, she noted that a resistance is
there from the state employees. She conveyed a story of her own
personal resistance to computers, when she was first exposed to
them in 1960. She stated her readiness to get this bill moving
to the House Finance Standing Committee.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Representative James to defer that motion so
that Representative Hayes could finish his line of questioning.
Number 2945
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he thought that the bill warrants more
discussion. He indicated the way that budgets are done in each
department and the technological capabilities of the state and
said he did not think that the committee should "add this on"
until it came up with a plan for, at least, deferred maintenance
of [the state's] technological infrastructure. He said he did
not know at what point employees are supposed to find the time
to do all the things "we want them to do," on top of their
priorities.
CHAIR COGHILL said he appreciated Representative Hayes's comment
and said he thinks that is "probably the tension of the
discussion we're going to have, probably perennially in state
government, or any other agency." He said he thinks the
pressure to go to the IT (information technology) world is
appropriate. He said he would be willing to entertain a motion
and indicated letting the House Finance Standing Committee [take
over the discussion].
TAPE 02-30, SIDE B
Number 2999
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the will of the committee was regarding
[HB 426].
Number 2980
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 426 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
CHAIR COGHILL said: "And we will attach the fiscal notes, so
that the broader discussion is brought up. I mean, if I found
that it was totally out of line, I might have zeroed it out;
but, I think that ... the policy discussion has to happen in a
financial world."
Number 2965
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that moving from one system to
another is never without cost; the benefit is that the
investment made improves efficiency and improves the cost "down
the line."
Number 2930
CHAIR COGHILL said: "Just for me, ... inherently, within the
shell, on line 6, is going to be 'to examine, prioritize,
convert, and interface.' So, I think that, just for the record,
I would expect that and as the testimony was brought forward,
that would certainly be part of the prioritization process."
Number 2936
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES reiterated his strong objection to moving
the bill at this time. He said he thinks this issue brings up a
larger issue for "state affairs," reiterating that there is no
comprehensive, technological, deferred maintenance plan to
upgrade [the state's] systems. He indicated a need for deferred
maintenance plans for both buildings and technology. Passing on
the bill without this plan will cause problems in the future, he
predicted.
Number 2899
CHAIR COGHILL reminded the committee that there was a motion on
the floor. Notwithstanding that, he said he wanted to give the
sponsor a chance to respond to the most recent discussion heard
by the committee.
Number 2878
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said he does not disagree that this
[proposed bill] is part of the bigger picture, but he also
thinks that it is a start; the message needs to be sent to the
department. He concurred with Representative James's
aforementioned statement that the intent is not that [people
have to make all the conversions at once]. The intent, he said,
is that [the state] move in this direction. He recalled when,
approximately four or five years ago, Lieutenant Governor Fran
Ulmer started the technology process. Although [Alaska] has
moved forward somewhat, and is viewed by many in the Lower 48
states as being on the leading edge, Representative Lancaster
said he tends to disagree with that; he said he thinks the state
should have moved "a little faster, a little sooner," which is
what this [proposed legislation] is meant to expedite.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said he does not disagree with the
previous comments made by Representative Hayes, regarding
deferred maintenance and natural upgrades and that there maybe
is no provision for that. He said, "I can't disagree with that,
either, but, again, we have to walk before we can run, and I
think this is getting the message to the department [that] we
need to move forward."
CHAIR COGHILL said he would entertain a vote. He said he
believes that the House Finance Standing Committee probably has
had "all of these things kind of converging on them." He said
he thinks this issue should be part of that discussion.
Number 2826
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he agreed with the concept
of [the proposed bill] and said he thinks this is the direction
that "we need to be moving in." He said he has concerns, as
well, and indicated that, although he would put his name on the
bill to move it along, he thinks that these concerns need to be
addressed. For example, he said he could foresee a scenario,
whereby agencies decide in the future that they will not accept
paper [forms] anymore. He noted that he is sure that many of
his constituents are uncomfortable with electronic form
submission and "don't have the capability of doing it." He
concluded that he thinks that there is more that needs to be
included in the bill before it becomes law.
CHAIR COGHILL said he agreed with Representative Crawford that
there is more to it, but said, "I don't know that this bill,
necessarily, has to be more, because it's ... part of the
broader discussion on managing government." He said he doesn't
think anyone would ever be forbidden from using a [paper] form,
because of the need to have access to government. He mentioned
that accommodations had been made for people with writing or
speaking disabilities.
Number 2725
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Crawford, Fate,
James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted for HB 426.
Representative Hayes voted against it. Therefore, HB 426 was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of six to one.
SB 297-MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND UNIT EMPLOYEES
[Contains brief discussion of SB 112.]
Number 2695
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 297, "An Act moving employees of the Alaska
mental health trust land unit of the Department of Natural
Resources from the partially exempt service to the exempt
service."
Number 2655
TIM LAMKIN, Staff to Senator Gary Wilken, Alaska State
Legislature, told the committee that the proposed legislation
was drafted to correct an oversight from the previous year and
mentioned SB 112. Nine employees of the [Alaska Mental Health]
land unit were overlooked [in that bill], he explained.
MR. LAMKIN remarked that there is no fiscal note attached,
because the money used to pay these employees comes from the
trust; therefore, there are no general funds attached to it. He
added that there is no bargaining unit involved, because of
"their" current partially exempt status. He said, "It allows,
essentially, the trust authority to remain competitive in the
(indisc.) market, relevant to recruiting, training, and
retaining its natural resource managers."
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Lamkin if he was aware of any objection
from the department.
MR. LAMKIN replied, "None whatsoever." He reiterated that [the
proposed legislation] comes at the request of the department.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there were any questions from the
committee members. He noted that there were people available
from the department to answer questions.
Number 2579
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her belief that this [legislation]
was "going in the right direction," was requested by the
department, and should be moved forward. She moved to report SB
297 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIR COGHILL said he thought it is a management tool that the
committee would do well to pass on to the mental health board.
He mentioned the mental health department and division, as well.
Number 2485
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection. There being no
objection, SB 297 was reported from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:01
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|