03/18/2010 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB394 | |
| HB53 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 394 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2010
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 394
"An Act relating to the data processing and telecommunications
activities of the state; relating to the security of certain
data processing records of the executive branch and making the
Department of Administration responsible for the security of
those records; and making the commissioner of administration the
chief information officer."
- MOVED CSHB 394(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to eligibility for membership on state boards,
commissions, and authorities."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 394
SHORT TITLE: EXECUTIVE BRANCH RECORDS SECURITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) STA, FIN
03/18/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 53
SHORT TITLE: CANDIDATES INELIGIBLE FOR BDS/COMMISSIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOOGAN
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD
01/28/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/28/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, introduced HB 394.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 394 on behalf of Representative Keller, sponsor.
RACHAEL PETRO, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during the hearing on HB
394.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 394.
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
394.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 53 as sponsor.
PRIYA KEANE, Staff
Representative Mike Doogan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
53 on behalf of Representative Doogan, sponsor.
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
53.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:26 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Gatto,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johnson and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 394-EXECUTIVE BRANCH RECORDS SECURITY
8:07:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 394, "An Act relating to the data processing and
telecommunications activities of the state; relating to the
security of certain data processing records of the executive
branch and making the Department of Administration responsible
for the security of those records; and making the commissioner
of administration the chief information officer."
8:07:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
introduced HB 394. He said the ability to use computers to
exchange information and cross distances and time has changed
the way people live. He stated that the primary goal of HB 394
is to ensure that state records do not get released
inappropriately. The bill would put together a management
system by which to define the standards being used for the
security of various records and the exchange of those records.
He mentioned some departments and the types of records they
keep. He offered his understanding that $400 million was
recently spent in the Department of Education to expand a
database which currently tracks each student to also track the
education of each student. He said the bill does not propose to
define each individual database, but proposes a situation in
which each department would retain its own information
technology (IT) system and a central information officer in the
state would be added.
8:14:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Chair Lynn, said the
state's data processors tell him there are "very sophisticated
hits on the information in the state daily." In response to a
follow-up question, he said there are no provisions in the bill
for backup of data. He explained that it is difficult to write
a bill regarding technology, because technology changes so fast.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that he wants to know if there will be a
requirement for records to be backed up, without naming the
method by which that would be done. He talked about the
vulnerability of paper records to fires.
8:17:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the point made by Chair
Lynn is exactly why he introduced this bill. He indicated that
backup standards should protect records, but said HB 394 does
not specify how that must be done. He clarified that the
proposed legislation would result in a starting system upon
which other efficiencies could later be initiated.
8:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reminded the committee that in 2002, there
was a security leak, and the following information of some state
workers was leaked: name, social security number, and date of
birth. Specifically, a contractor with the state lost the
information. He offered further details.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said HB 394 would designate the
commissioner of the Department of Administration as the person
to establish protocols and standards related to security. He
said the Department of Administration seemed logical to him, but
he said he does not care which department, as long as a
structure is in place.
8:21:32 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, sponsor of HB
394, highlighted Section 4, beginning on page 3, line 28, as
being the most important section of the bill. Everything prior
to Section 4, he explained, is existing language in statute.
Mr. Pound said security breaches in computer technology are a
worldwide problem. He said currently each department has its
own security measures for records, but the proposed legislation
would "establish a single plan for security in the state of
Alaska." He added that whatever the plan is, it will have to be
updated frequently to guard against hackers.
8:23:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that he had no intent in
sponsoring HB 394 to demean the standards that are currently in
place in the various state departments.
8:24:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to language in the bill
title, on page 1, line 3, which read "making the Department of
Administration responsible". Next, he pointed to language in
the fiscal note prepared by Guy Bell, the assistant commissioner
of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, who writes
that the proposed legislation "places overall authority". He
then highlighted that the fiscal note prepared by Anna Kim, the
director of Administrative Services, says that [HB 394] "allows"
the Department of Administration to create regulations.
Finally, he pointed out that the sponsor statement read that the
HB 394 "assigns" [the department]. He opined that it would be
helpful to use the same word, and he questioned whether that
word should be "designates."
8:25:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that the only assigning proposed
by the bill is that of the chief information officer (CIO), who
would not be able to "access ... anyone's ... HIPA record,"
because that would be illegal.
8:26:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, line 15,
which read as follows:
(d) The department shall adopt regulations to
implement this section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that Mr. Brooks told him the
regulations would be adopted under the Administrative Procedures
Act, AS 44.62. He then directed attention to language on page
4, line 29, which would set a due date for the first report "on
January 1 of the fifth calendar year after this Act takes
effect." He opined that five years is a long time to wait for a
report. He asked the bill sponsor what he thinks about changing
that requirement to the third or fourth year in order to get
progress reports sooner.
8:27:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would support that. In response
to a follow-up question, he said he would appreciate it if
Representative Gruenberg would ask the department for its
recommendation regarding when the first report could be
expected.
8:28:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that HB 394 is about security of
records and proposes that the department is "responsible for the
operation and management of automatic data processing
resources". He directed attention to language on page 4,
beginning on line 21, which read as follows:
(1) "data processing records" means the records that
are produced or maintained by the automatic data
processing resources and activities of the state
agency and that are not being held by the Alaska State
Archives;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that subsection (2), on page 3,
beginning on line 3, addresses management of records, which is
under existing statutes. He observed that the new language in
Section 4 addresses only automatic data processing records,
whereas state agencies currently deal with records. He asked if
that is the intent of the sponsor.
8:29:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that his intent was "to make the
protocol standards structure over all records in the state," and
he said he finds the word "automatic" confusing. He said he
would like the department to weigh in on that word.
CHAIR LYNN emphasized the urgency of protecting the state's
information.
8:31:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification whether that
language means that the commissioner will have sole
responsibility or there will be designees involved.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that there would
be a team of designees, but that the responsibility would lie
with the commissioner of the Department of Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he is trying to figure out
if the wording accomplishes the intent. He asked if there are
other subsections addressing strictly IT functions or other
duties and powers of the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded, "I assume it's the
comprehensive description of the responsibilities of the
Department of Administration, and that's worth checking."
8:34:29 AM
RACHAEL PETRO, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration, stated that HB 394 would affect not only the
Department of Administration, but all the departments within the
executive branch. She said every department in the executive
branch is subject to different federal requirements. For
example, the Department of Public Safety manages the criminal
justice information system, which has specific FBI policies it
must follow, and both the Department of Health & Social Services
and the Division of Retirement and Benefits within the
Department of Administration must adhere to the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPA). Essentially, she
related, departments are concerned that the provision in HB 394
would somehow put them out of compliance with federal laws. For
that reason, she said, the administration is not ready to take a
position on the proposed legislation, but is very committed to
working with Representative Keller to insure that the various
requirements are accommodated.
8:36:19 AM
MS. PETRO said she would provide an update of where the
administration is regarding the implementation of security
procedures and policies on a statewide basis, and how that
relates directly to Section 4 of the proposed legislation. She
reminded the committee about the passage of House Bill 65 years
ago, which was the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
That bill, along with the initiatives and efforts that ensued in
the Department of Administration and throughout the executive
branch provided further impetus to identify information security
officers and computer security designees within each executive
branch agency, as a means of ensuring that each department has a
focus on securing its information system. She stated that
essentially, the information security officers and computer
security designees within each department provide the basic
security infrastructure within each department for ongoing
security initiative. She said the information security officers
are designated by each department's commissioner.
MS. PETRO stated that security awareness and best practices
training is currently under development through a contract with
the University of Memphis, and on line training for department
information security officers (ISOs) and computer security
designees (CSDs) is expected to be available about this time
next year. Eventually, all state employees, as well as
political subdivisions of the state will be able to avail
themselves of this training. Currently, she said, security
policies and procedures are in place, but the Security Office of
the Enterprise Technology Services Division within the
Department of Administration is currently working to update
those security policies. The policies, she related, are based
on the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)
standard. She added that ITIL is the industry leader for IT
best practices. Ms. Petro stated that these policies will be
disseminated through department information security officers,
and, at that point, they will be reviewed and discussion may
result in policy modification to address conflict with existing
department business practice, as well as specific requirements
of different departments.
MS. PETRO stated that the next step will be to put auditing in
place, to ensure that everyone involved is complying with the
security policies. The department is in the process of
developing those tools, and will be implementing that process
first within the Department of Administration.
8:39:25 AM
MS. PETRO addressed previously stated concerns of the committee.
First, regarding Representative Gruenberg's concern about the
time frame for reporting, she said she thinks two to three years
would be acceptable, given the department's current progress in
implementing policies and procedures, which, she added, are
being designed to allow each department to modify to fit their
business needs. In response to Representative Seaton's
previously expressed concern about definitions, Ms. Petro
related that the department heard from at least one other
department that is also concerned about the definitions. She
said the definitions definitely need to be "cleaned up." She
noted that in 20 years the state will not be talking about paper
documents - all technology will be computerized. She said the
department would be happy to work with the bill sponsor
regarding the definitions and "how they relate." Ms. Petro
offered to answer questions.
8:40:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there is any language in the bill as it is
currently drafted that would cause problems for the department.
MS. PETRO, in response, reiterated that the department would
like to work with the bill sponsor and the departments to ensure
that there is no problematic language, and would prefer to do so
"before the bill is passed."
CHAIR LYNN restated the urgency of passing legislation on this
issue.
8:43:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, regarding the fiscal note from Guy Bell,
directed attention to the last sentence of the analysis, which
read as follows:
The cost to the department's business units of
complying with any new policies derived as a result of
this legislation is indeterminate.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that the amount for fiscal year
2011 (FY 11) shows as zero, as if it could be determined. He
asked if there is some way to make the fiscal note "reflect more
accurately what the cost of this activity will be."
8:44:51 AM
MS. PETRO responded that currently state departments are
required to follow statewide security policies, which is the
cost of doing business. She said there may be some changes in
the future, but "it is part of what we do every day today." She
said although there may be future, discreet, specific budget
requests "related to the items," she does not anticipate any
additional costs associated with the newer, updated policies to
come.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Ms. Petro believes that "putting
all the information in the hands of one department" will enhance
or diminish security. He pointed out that if a hacker gets into
the system, he/she may get more information in one attempt.
MS. PETRO answered that the proposed legislation would not do
anything to consolidate databases that are centered on different
departments and divisions of state government. In Section 4,
she said, the proposed bill outlines that the Department of
Administration, through the CIO, would develop and adopt
standards, policies, and procedures. She said current policies
are being updated. Regarding security philosophy, Ms. Petro
stated that the department subscribes to the view of security in
depth. She said there are varying strategies related to IT
infrastructures, and she indicated that in-depth strategy is the
industry standard.
8:47:22 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
stated that it is important to remember that the state has been
spending a significant amount of money in the last five years
reinforcing its data networks. He said each department is the
keeper of its own data, whether paper or digitized. The State
Archives has rules regarding how paper documents are stored. He
said the words "automatic data processing" were probably put
into statute in the 1970s when "punch cards" were still in use.
Mr. Brooks said the Department of Administration is trying to
secure the state's wide area network, into which all state
agencies join. Then those departments have their own local area
networks. He said even the legislature is part of the state's
wide area network. He said the department is working to secure
that infrastructure, but it is a collaborative effort with all
the other departments. Regarding the indeterminate fiscal note,
he stated, "Responses to real threats in the future could result
in ... responses by the state and state agencies that could cost
money, and I think it's indeterminate because it's just really
unknown at this time what you might be looking at."
8:49:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 4,
lines 4-6, which read as follows:
(b) The department shall
(1) develop, implement, and maintain
policies to ensure that data processing records are
secure from unlawful release;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the department is doing that now
or if each individual department currently is required to do
that, but under HB 394 the Department of Administration would be
responsible.
8:50:36 AM
MS. PETRO confirmed that the Department of Administration is
doing that now, because the baseline policies that govern the
state's wide area network and all departments within the
executive branch are dependent upon that network. She explained
the reason she had mentioned House Bill 65 previously is because
that bill was a direct impetus that helped the Department of
Administration organize other departments and ensure that there
are information security officers key in each department to
ensure that those departments follow the area wide network
requirements, as well as their own business requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the ensuing language
on page 4, lines 7-9, which read as follows:
(2) define the responsibilities for the
security of the data processing records of each state
agency, communicate the responsibilities to the state
agency, and coordinate the responsibilities among
state agencies; and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "Would that be expanded under this
bill beyond what you're doing currently with the wide area
network?"
MS. PETRO said she does not think the department's efforts would
be expanded beyond what is currently being done.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he presumes the answer would be the
same regarding paragraph (3), which read as follows:
(3) establish procedures for maintaining the
security of the data processing records and provide
training for stage agency personnel to implement the
procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the term "automatic data
processing" in Section 4, and asked, "Do you see that your
currently responsibility - what you're doing - is encompassing
that, or do you see your current responsibility as larger than
that for automatic data processing ... resources?"
MS. PETRO answered that she foresees no expansion of the
department's responsibilities under Section 4 of HB 394.
8:53:40 AM
MS. PETRO, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed
that the department would be able to handle a requirement to
file a first report in two years.
8:54:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that under HB 394, the five years
is given as the deadline for the first report only; each
subsequent report would be due every two years. He said he
wonders if the reason for that is to give the department a
chance to put a new system in place.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that is probably the reason, but
he wants to the report to be produced sooner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Ms. Petro if "this" would in any
way remove accountability from the department for its own
security and place that on the administration.
8:55:29 AM
MS. PETRO prefaced her answer by saying she is not an attorney.
She reiterated that Section 4, as currently written, would not
expand the responsibilities of the Department of Administration,
which is currently working collaboratively with other
departments out of necessity. She stated, "The information
technology infrastructure on which every department builds its
specific business systems to meet ... the needs of their
constituents are reliant on what we do at the Department of
Administration. We are intertwined."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he is talking about
accountability, not responsibility.
MS. PETRO said she thinks with the development of updated
policies and standards will come additional accountability. She
reiterated that the updating is already taking place.
8:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the final sentence in the
fiscal analysis written by Anna Kim, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Additionally, with the Commissioner of Administration
fulfilling the role of Enterprise CIO, each agency
head will lose the critical and important
responsibility for department data storage, security,
and protocols.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Petro if there is just a
philosophical agreement "as to whether that's correct in the
fiscal note."
MS. PETRO reiterated that there are different concerns from
different departments that need to be addressed. The department
needs to work with the sponsor to ensure that everyone's
concerns are addressed.
9:00:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN directed attention to Section 3 and
questioned if there might be an issue of separation of powers.
9:00:56 AM
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, said he does not have an answer at this time,
but will look into that. Notwithstanding that, he said his
initial reaction is that he does not think there is an issue
related to the separation of powers.
9:01:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Sniffen if the Department of Law
has any of the same concerns that the Department of Education
has expressed.
9:01:32 AM
MR. SNIFFEN answered no. He concurred with Ms. Petro's previous
statement that the bill would not expand any of the
responsibilities currently in place for the Department of
Administration, and he said he is unsure how the bill would
affect the Department of Education's role in continuing to do
what is necessary to protect its information. He said just
because he does not understand the concern of the Department of
Education does not mean there is no reason for it, and he said
it would be interesting to find out what that concern is in a
little more detail.
9:02:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that Mr.
Sniffen questioned the separation of powers issue. He stated,
"This clearly says agencies mean agencies of the executive
branch." He said the Department of Law is an executive branch,
and he asked, "We're not thinking about the court system here
are we?"
MR. SNIFFEN answered that is correct, which is why he does not
think there is a problem "with this language here." He
explained that he just has not had a chance to talk about the
issue much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for confirmation that "it doesn't
include the legislature either," only the executive branch.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that is correct.
9:03:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:03:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that Section 3 seems to
be dealing only with automatic data processing resources. He
opined that if the bill is trying to coordinate activities,
Section 3 should list all the pieces of information that are
intended. In response to Chair Lynn, he said he is not ready to
offer an amendment without further consideration of the matter.
9:05:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 4, line 29:
Delete "fifth"
Insert "second"
9:05:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the requirement on page 4,
line 29, could be deleted, since there is already a requirement
[in subsection (e), on page 4, lines 16-19] for a report to be
submitted every two years.
9:05:44 AM
MS. PETRO said Representative Johnson's suggestion would work.
9:05:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
sponsor nodded his head in response.
9:06:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1.
9:06:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 4, lines 26-30:
Delete Section 5
[Amendment 2 was treated as adopted.]
9:07:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 394, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 394(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:07:50 AM to 9:10:26 AM.
HB 53-CANDIDATES INELIGIBLE FOR BDS/COMMISSIONS
9:10:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 53, "An Act relating to eligibility for membership on
state boards, commissions, and authorities."
9:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 53, Version 26-LS0296\R, Bullard, 2/10/10, as work
draft.
CHAIR LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
9:11:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 53, reviewed that the proposed legislation would require
members of boards and commissions to resign their positions when
applying for political office. He said there are people who
serve on boards and commissions who are in a position to
materially affect the lives of citizens by advancing the
interests of candidates, financially and otherwise. For
example, he said there is a man serving on the Human Rights
Commission who has filed for the Alaska State Legislature. He
stated, "He ..., in fact, would be able to materially affect
something that somebody wants and be in a position to ask that
same person for ... campaign money. And because of that, I
think that one or the other of those things has to go."
9:15:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if it would be possible to create a rule that a
candidate who is serving on a board or commission may not accept
a contribution from anyone on that board or commission.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said that would be a difficult law to
draft.
CHAIR LYNN noted that legislators are not allowed to accept
contributions during a legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said members of boards and commissions are
appointed for a certain number of years, and their schedule
follows that of the board or commission. He said he could not
figure out a way "to go at it in that direction, to ... limit
your ability to raise funds if you're running for office,
outside of the limitations we already have."
9:17:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for confirmation that the proposed
legislation pertains only to legislative or executive offices.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR LYNN specified that would mean the offices of legislator,
governor, and lieutenant governor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON mentioned an "advisory commission," which
is set up through the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
He asked, "How far down does this go when you say boards or
commissions?"
9:18:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related that there are approximately 120
boards and commissions. He said, "They don't go down to the
level that you're talking about." He indicated that the bill
pertains to boards and commissions that are set up in statute to
be able to take "some sort of action." He offered his
understanding that that does not include advisory boards, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that the committee has a list of 98
boards with influence over constituent groups [included in the
committee packet]. He said he wants the legislation to be clear
whether or not it includes advisory boards that are appointed or
have their own elections, or community councils, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that he is "not trying to get
down to that level at all."
9:20:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if a clear line has been drawn.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN characterized the bill as "a rough attempt
to limit the members of boards and commissions that in most
cases have got some ability to effect what the state does for
... [and] to citizens."
9:21:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed concern that under HB 53, a person who
gives up his/her seat on a board or commission in order to run
for political office but does not get elected, will end up
without his/her seat on the board or commission. He said it is
difficult to find people to serve on boards and commissions.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that what Chair Lynn said is
true; however, he pointed out that the person would be allowed
to serve on that board or commission after a waiting period of
one year.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that getting back on a board or commission
requires an opening. He asked the reason for the proposed year
waiting period.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN explained that without the year waiting
period, the person running for office could still make promises
to do things on the board or commission for the person
supporting his/her campaign.
9:24:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, in response to Representative Gatto,
confirmed that currently an elected official is allowed to serve
on a board. He pointed out that some boards require that a
legislator fill a seat.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that he serves on the Alaska
Commission on Post Secondary Education, although he is not sure
he fills a seat because of being a legislator. He asked if
there could be a grandfather clause, by which a legislator
already serving on a board could remain on that board while
running for office.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN offered his belief that there would be no
such grandfather clause opportunity under HB 53. In response to
a follow-up question, he stated that there is an exception under
HB 53 for the positions legislators have on boards or
commissions "by virtue of the fact that they are legislators."
9:27:33 AM
PRIYA KEANE, Staff, Representative Mike Doogan, Alaska State
Legislature, answered questions on behalf of Representative
Doogan, sponsor of HB 53. In response to Representative Gatto,
she directed attention to a legal memorandum from the bill
drafter, dated February 10, 2010. In the memorandum, Mr.
Bullard maintains that there is a separation of powers issue in
having legislators serve as public members on state boards,
commissions, or authorities - it is not legal. However, she
said certain boards, commissions, or authorities have positions
for sitting legislators. Those legislative positions are exempt
under HB 53. The purpose of Version R was to clarify that
exemption.
9:29:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the last page of the
aforementioned list [included in the committee packet] of 98
boards with influence over constituent groups, and read the some
of the names on it, including: the National Park and Park
Monument Subsistence Resource Commissions, the Alaska Veterans
Advisory Council, the Board of Veterinary Examiners, the Water
and Wastewater Works Advisory Board, the Wood-Tikchik State Park
Management Council, and the Yukon River Panel Advisory
Committee. He said many of those entities are run by involved
citizens. Especially in rural Alaska, he said, it is difficult
to fill these positions with people who are active and want to
be involved in their community. He surmised that it is an
unintended consequence that the bill would prevent people who
have been active and responsible in their communities from
running for office without giving up their position for an
entire year in the event they are not elected.
9:31:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that that is not an unintended
consequence. He opined that people have to make choices in
life, and under HB 53, a person would have to decide whether to
run for office or stay on a board or commission. He said it is
the same choice that a public employee would have to make if
he/she ran for office.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the title of the
original bill version, which includes state boards, commissions,
and authorities. He then noted that the title in Version R
includes only state boards or commissions; however, on page 2
lines 14 and 17, of Version R, authorities is included.
9:33:14 AM
MS. KEANE responded that she is not clear why the bill drafter
chose [to include "authorities" on lines 14 and 17].
9:33:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that [on page 2, lines 15 and 18,
of Version R], federal office is included. He questioned, "I
guess we're controlling the board, so if you run, we can remove
you from the board, so, why couldn't we do the same thing with
... municipal elections?"
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN replied, "I'm not sure that we couldn't."
He indicated that municipalities can decide whether or not to
address the issue.
CHAIR LYNN questioned whether "any of us on committee here
[could] run for Congress and still keep our job here."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that there is a legislator
currently in office who is running for a federal election.
CHAIR LYNN noted that legislator is not filing for reelection to
the [legislature].
9:35:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said his point is that while cities have
control of their elections, the legislature has control of their
boards and commissions; therefore, requiring a person to resign
from a state board in order to run for a city office would be
problematic for a municipality. In response to Representative
Doogan, he said, "I think there's a difference between making it
a requirement that you not be on a board and saying you're
getting kicked off a board if you do." He indicated that one
may lead to discrimination issues. He concluded, "I think it
has to come from us, it can't come from them."
9:38:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN admitted Representative Johnson might be
right.
9:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the bill could pertain to city,
state, and federal elections.
9:39:28 AM
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), noted that the definition of state boards or
commissions, as well as a list of boards which report public
financial disclosures, is found in AS 39.50.200(b).
9:40:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 1,
line 5, of Version R, which read: "if the person sought
nomination or became a candidate". He offered his understanding
that until a person files a letter of intent [to run for office]
he/she cannot raise funds.
MS. HILL responded that is correct. She offered her
understanding regarding nomination, that until an individual is
appointed, he/she does not file forms with APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that any intent the bill sponsor
may have of including language to ensure that people do not use
their influence on a board or commission to leverage
contributions would be redundant, because currently if someone
seeks nomination and has not filed a letter of intent, he/she is
prohibited from soliciting or raising money in pursuit of that
office.
9:43:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described a situation in which three
people from a political party are nominated for a political
office. He asked if all three nominated would be ineligible to
serve on a board, even though only one of them could possibly
get elected.
9:44:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the bill would apply to
anyone who put his/her name forward to the selection process.
He stated, "So, it could be a dozen people in each community
that wanted to put their name forward for that seat because
they're seeking the nomination, as I read seeking the
nomination, and yet they've had no ability to file an intent or
to raise campaign funds."
9:44:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN directed attention to page 2, line 1,
which read as follows:
(2) has filed a nominating petition under AS
15.25.140 - 15.25.200, AS 15.30.026, AS 15.40.180,
15.40.190, 15.40.270 - 15.40.290, or 15.40.430 -
15.40.450 to become a candidate for elective state or
federal executive or legislative office;
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said his understanding of that language is
that a person has filed for office. In response to
Representative Johnson, he stated his belief that appointments
are not covered in the aforementioned statutes.
9:45:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN stated, "That was basically the same
thing I was going to say, ... that unless they have filed a
declaration as a candidate then they wouldn't be covered, so, I
think it's already covered."
9:46:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that HB 53 is a confusing bill.
He described proposed legislation as possible solutions to
perceived problems; however, he said he is not certain what
problem is being addressed by HB 53.
9:46:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said one of the responsibilities of the
legislature is to safeguard not only the integrity of the
electoral process, but also the citizens' faith in it. He said
the proposed legislation is his attempt to address that issue.
In response to a follow-up question, he said the point is to "do
what you can to make sure that people don't think that somebody
gets a leg up."
CHAIR LYNN said the issue relates to not only reality, but
perception.
9:48:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I don't know that anybody is
going to get a ... leg up because they're on the board of
hairdressers or something like that. In fact, I don't know very
many of these boards where you'd really get a leg up." He said
his second concern is that there are many ways a person can get
a leg up that don't relate to "this." He said he is not certain
that the problem has been properly identified. He questioned
whether this issue is something that can be legislated. He said
he had thought that the purpose of the bill was to prevent
bribery, but now he is "more confused than ever."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that he is having trouble
understanding the cause of the confusion. He stated, "Either
you think that there are opportunities that other people don't
have, that go along with being a member of a board or
commission, in electoral terms, or you don't."
CHAIR LYNN remarked that most people running for office have
some special interest group either supporting or opposing them.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN concurred, but added, "These are not
advantages that you get from being put in a position basically
that you can get that through the State of Alaska - this is a
different deal."
9:53:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, in response to Representative Gatto, said
the year waiting period begins from the date of the election.
9:54:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said a person who, for example, has
served on the Board of Fisheries and then gets elected to be a
legislator would have "huge support" from the board, which is
why HB 53 makes sense.
9:56:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:56:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN remarked that he has no expectations that
HB 53 will pass into law, and expressed willingness to start
over with it in the next legislative session.
9:58:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN removed his objection to the motion to adopt the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 53, Version 26-LS0296\R,
Bullard, 2/10/10, as work draft.
9:58:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that there is no
reference to "authorities" in the title of Version R, while
there is mention of "authorities" within the body of Version R.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that "authorities" should be
added to the title of Version R.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the bill be held.
9:58:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked the bill sponsor to come back with a committee
substitute as soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN expressed compliance with the idea of
including "authorities" in the title of Version R, and said he
would have a committee substitute made.
[HB 53 was held over. The motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 53, Version 26-LS0296\R, Bullard,
2/10/10, as work draft, was left pending.]
10:00:53 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0394A.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 02 HB 394 Sponsor.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 03 HB394 IBM.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 04 HB 394 Archive info.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 05 HB 394 software options.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 06 HB394-DOA-ETS-03-15-10.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| 01 HB 53- Bill.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 02 HSTA - HB 53 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 03 HB053-OOG-EO-01-22-10.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 04 HSTA - HB 53 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 05 HSTA - HB 53 Leg. Research Report.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 06 HSTA - HB 53 Back Up Charts.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 07 HSTA - HB 53 Statutues Affected by HB 53.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 08 HB 53 - Back Up Report.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 09 HB 53 - Back Up Table.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| HB 53- CS.PDF |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| HB 53- Legal Memo.PDF |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| HB 53- Summary of Changes in CS Version R.PDF |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| HB394-DOLWD-CO-03-17-10.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |
| HB394-EED-ESS-3-17-10.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 394 |