03/15/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB400 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB352 | |
| Presentation: Indirect Expenditures – Wwami | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 352 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2018
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to the collection of fees by the Department of
Public Safety for fire and explosion prevention and safety
services."
- MOVED HB 400 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to compensation, merit increases, and pay
increments for certain public officials, officers, and employees
not covered by collective bargaining agreements; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 352
"An Act relating to voter registration; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: INDIRECT EXPENDITURE HEARING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
02/28/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/18 (H) STA, FIN
03/01/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (H) STA, FIN
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 352
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/18 (H) STA, FIN
03/15/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID TYLER, State Fire Marshal; Director
Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 3 on behalf of House
State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 400.
LESLIE RIDLE, Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 71.
KATE SHEEHAN, Director
Division of Personnel & Labor Relations
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 71.
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 352 on behalf of the House
Rules Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor.
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 352.
CAROL A. THOMPSON, Absentee & Petition Manager
Absentee & Petition Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 352.
JANE SHELBY, MD; Director
Alaska WWAMI School of Medical Education
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of University of
Washington, School of Medicine during a discussion about the
WWAMI program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:18:52 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins Knopp, Wool, and Birch were
present at the call to order. Representatives LeDoux, Tuck, and
Johnson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
3:20:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to the collection
of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and
explosion prevention and safety services."
[Due to their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
400.]
3:20:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated members should have a proposed
amendment to HB 400 in their packets [referred to as Amendment 3
and labeled 30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]. He explained
that Amendment 3 would include changes that were discussed in
committee on [March 13, 2018]. He asked Mr. David Tyler, the
State Fire Marshal, to discuss the changes made in Amendment 3
to HB 400 and to provide his division's perspective on the
proposed amendment.
3:20:56 PM
DAVID TYLER, State Fire Marshal; Director, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained
that at the last hearing [on March 13, 2018] the committee
removed the language in proposed Amendment 3 that indicated
[fines] for violations could be compounded daily. The revised
Amendment 3 [A.3] states that the violation will remain in
effect until the fine has been paid or the situation [causing
the citation] has been remedied. The division has the option to
reissue a citation if the person receiving the citation paid the
bail but did not fix the problem. He noted that Amendment 3
[D.3] streamlined the process to make the citation basically "a
fix-it" ticket.
3:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled when the bill was first proposed,
Mr. Tyler had mentioned the only "teeth" the division had was to
issue a misdemeanor, which the division had not previously done.
He further recalled that the current process the division has
been using has been to list violations in hopes that the person
or company would fix what was wrong, but if they did not do so,
the only option the division had was to issue a misdemeanor and
the party would have a criminal record. The idea of issuing
citations for fines up to $500 has been under consideration. He
related his understanding that the division thought issuing
citations would not be used quite often. This current iteration
would allow people 30 days to fix the problem. He asked whether
citations being issued would increase since people have 30 days
to fix it or how the division's procedures might change.
MR. TYLER answered that the procedures would not drastically
change. Currently, the division does not use the misdemeanor
process because the district attorney would not prosecute them,
since they are too busy with other things. He explained that
the division's options were to issue an order to correct, which
basically asks the party to please fix the problem. The next
realistic option would be to close the building, which is a
measure of last resort and not productive. He said he agrees
that warnings should continue to be issued. He was interested
in seeing how this would work because it was possible to put a
court date in for those residing in a remote area, for example,
if he knew it would take two months to have a sprinkler system
installed, he could set a court date two months out. In that
way, the business would not be held to a time line that it could
not possibly meet.
3:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that issue had arisen, for
example if someone's ANSUL system needed servicing or something
as simple as a restaurant hood cleaning might be hard to
schedule during a particularly busy time of the year. He
offered his belief that someone with an automatic auto handheld
device could be uploaded daily and after 30 days an automatic
warning would be sent out. In instances in which the Fire
Marshal gave an extended date for remedy, he wondered whether
people would get hung up in the fine system. He recalled that
the Alaska Court System said that uploads and warning letters
happened automatically. He recalled someone might pay a parking
ticket but two years later it was still in the system. He asked
for further clarification on the hand-held devices and the
process for automatic letters. He recalled previous testimony
that these devices were not yet in use.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL wondered if the hand-held devises were a
"new work in progress."
MR. TYLER agreed it was a "work in progress." He was unsure how
the court would issue its warnings if he wrote a court date for
60-90 days after the citation. He said the bill requires him to
give a minimum of a 35-day-notice for a court date and he has 10
days to file it.
3:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that HB 400 started out as a means
to collect more fees; however, it has now morphed into major
discussion as to whether the offenses should be violations or
misdemeanors. She recalled on the House floor that the
legislature passed a bill related to load limits and changed it
from violations to criminal conduct to account for
responsibility. She wondered why this needed to be changed.
She recalled the Fire Marshal did not charge someone with a
misdemeanor, so she was unsure why he did not use the authority
to do so. She expressed concern that the Fire Marshal might not
charge someone [and a fire could occur] and cause injury or
death. She was unsure why this would go from a misdemeanor to a
violation.
3:28:50 PM
MR. TYLER responded that a misdemeanor charge would not be a
high priority for the attorney general. The proposed citation
and fine under Amendment 3 to HB 400 would provide a more
useable tool. If the parties fix the fire safety issues, they
would not need to pay any fine and the division obtains its goal
of fire safety compliance.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that part of the bill retains a
violation for certain outcomes. If someone gets seriously hurt,
it would be a misdemeanor. He asked in an instance where
someone was killed due to the fire resulting from a dirty vent
hood, whether existing statutes cover the crime.
MR. TYLER answered that if someone was killed the responsible
person could be charged for negligence or other offense
determined by the attorney general.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that another bill [HB 259]
discussed on the House floor today related to specifying a crime
for unsecured loads for truck.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that was not his understanding.
He recalled testifiers before the [House Transportation and
Judiciary] committees. One person was nearly killed in an
accident resulting from unsecured debris flying through her
windshield, but the police could not charge the driver with an
unsecured load with a crime.
3:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was correct, that under the current
statute the law only applied to commercial operators. He
offered his belief that the legislature, in its actions on the
House floor, extended some of the penalties to private operators
and defined "gross negligence." He agreed this was not the
only bill before the legislature that sought to decrease
misdemeanor penalties to citations. This would make it easier
to collect and this bill was a trend for this administration.
3:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that at times the House Labor
and Commerce committee found misdemeanor penalties were onerous
and were reduced to citations to obtain compliance. The threat
of penalty was lighter and might be used more often, he said.
He expressed concern was that this approach might result in an
overabundance of citations. He was unsure of the consequences,
but time would tell.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, referring to Representative Wool's
scenario of a fire resulting from a dirty hood in a restaurant
that might get a "fix-it" ticket from the fire marshal. He
researched the law applicable to "fix-it" tickets: [Alaska
Statutes] AS 18.70.010-100. He was trying to get a sense of
whether a dirty hood would fall within the scope of a "fix-it"
ticket.
MR. TYLER stated that the division's performance measures strive
for 30 percent with no discrepancies. He offered that the
division reached 12 percent in 2016 and 25 percent last year.
He was having trouble hearing the question and asked to have it
restated.
3:35:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated the question.
MR. TYLER answered yes; that could be a citation. He mentioned
potential violations that could result in citations, including a
sprinkler or fire alarm system not in compliance, excess
hardware not functioning, box corridor, exit lighting, or
expired fire extinguishers.
3:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the division charged any fees
for inspecting systems.
MR. TYLER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said an acquaintance built a new real
estate company and complained about the fees to have heating
ventilation or fire suppression checked. He was unsure of what
was inspected or the agency or private company that performed
the work. He related his understanding that this bill would
give the department some receipt authority and allow it to
establish fees for inspections and permitting. He asked for
further clarification on if a draft fee schedule exists
MR. TYLER responded that the fiscal note [analysis on page 2,
Department of Public Safety, Fire and Life Safety fees] provides
a potential method for developing fees. He stated one challenge
was to develop uniform fees even though inspection times may
vary, depending on who conducted the inspection. He cautioned
that charging a flat rate might not be the best approach since
small businesses could be assessed a larger proportional fee
than larger operations and he described an example (audio
difficulties).
3:38:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP noted the audio difficulties.
3:39:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for committee comments. He said
unless there were further questions, it was his intent to put
Amendment 3 forward and he was fine with the committee either
accepting it, not accepting it, or holding it.
3:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he thought the language was getting
better and he liked proposed Amendment 3. As Representative
LeDoux mentioned it started off as "fee for inspection" but has
morphed to a whole citation and fee system. He acknowledged
that this approach was also new to the Fire Marshal's office.
He recalled a previous testifier from the court system, Ms.
Mead, said the police currently have a hand-held system for
issuing motor vehicle citations. This was different since it
deals with building inspections. He did not necessarily think
he would like to lump citations for the fire inspections into
the system with police speeding tickets and that type of "fast
tracking." He was unsure that he would oppose a system of fines
for violations, and although he had some hesitation [Amendment
3] was an improvement over the previous version of the
amendment.
3:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was not convinced. She preferred
the original version of the bill.
3:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was not likely to support the bill.
He did not support generating revenue through fees, which he
thought was bad public policy. He said the businesses were not
asking for these inspections. He acknowledged that the Fire
Marshal has always mandated inspections. He recalled [HB 114]
relating to boiler inspection, that independent contractors
would inspect and certify the system, perform any repairs, and
the owner pays the fee and files the paperwork. He preferred
the boiler inspection model for paying fees for inspections.
3:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, as a small business owner, related that all
the fees are increasing, including fees for business and
professional licenses, fire marshal inspections, and on and on.
He expressed concern because the state fire marshal could
threaten to shut someone down without having to go through the
district attorney's office. Perhaps fees could be assessed for
new construction. He was unsure and said that obviously the
committee was still wrestling with this.
3:44:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would not move to adopt proposed
Amendment 3 since the committee did not support it. He
suggested the state fire marshal could work with the next
committee of referral [the House Finance Committee] to adopt the
amendment, which would be fine.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS brought members back to HB 400, which had
not been amended since the committee only entertained an idea
with proposed Amendment 3. He asked for additional comments on
HB 400.
3:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she did not have any problem with
bill as written. She liked the idea and people receiving the
services will pay for them. She acknowledged Representative
Knopp's suggestion on private enterprise competing to provide
the services.
3:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her belief that government's job
was to provide fire safety and address fire and life safety
issues. She expressed concern that imposing a fee for fire
inspections might cause businesses to put off fire inspections.
She recalled the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
has dispensed with fees or reimbursement costs for spill
cleanup. Providing fire inspections to the public was more
important than waiving the spill cleanup fees, she said. She
related she has a commercial building and she has a tremendous
respect for the fire marshal's office and she does everything in
her power to be certain there are no fire hazards and she
requests annual inspections. She was unsure that all companies
were as diligent and adding fees would make it more difficult.
3:47:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he has worked with fire
inspectors, especially in rural Alaska and they always do a
tremendous job. He was familiar with plan reviews and
assessment for fees. He would like to give the bill a chance,
given the importance of good fire safety and inspection. He
recalled that for plan reviews when design professionals such as
architects and engineers are hired to design a building the
expectation is that the design will be to code. He offered his
belief that the review process for public facilities benefits
from a review capability that the fire marshal's office
provides.
3:49:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL disagreed with Representative Johnson that
some businesses would opt not to have inspections since the
inspections are not optional, and that businesses are given a
specific timeframe to remedy any fixes. He remarked that if the
state was not going to have an income tax, it was choosing to
charge fees to businesses for services instead.
3:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that fresh water inspections for
businesses were done by private contractor instead of through
DEC. He acknowledged that mandatory annual inspections were in
place. He remarked it was difficult to pay fees to have someone
write the business a citation.
3:51:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX REPRESENTATIVE moved to report HB 400 out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP objected.
3:52:13 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wool, LeDoux,
Birch, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of moving HB 400 out of
committee. Representatives Johnson and Knopp voted against it.
Therefore, HB 400 was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
The following amendments to HB 400 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing:
Amendment 4 [30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]:
Page 1, line 2, following "services;":
Insert "and relating to penalties for violating
fire protection and safety requirements and orders"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.70.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) A [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS
SECTION, A] person who violates a provision of
AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 or a regulation adopted under
those sections, or who fails to comply with an order
issued under AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100, is guilty of a
violation and shall be punished as provided in
AS 12.55 by a fine of not more than $500. Each day
[CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. WHEN NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,
EACH 10 DAYS] that the violation or noncompliance
continues is a separate offense.
* Sec. 3. AS 18.70.100 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) A peace officer or an employee of the
department who is authorized by the commissioner of
public safety to enforce this chapter may issue a
citation to a person who commits a violation
identified under this section.
(e) A citation issued under this section must
comply with the standards adopted under AS 12.25.175 -
12.25.230. A person receiving the citation is not
required to sign a promise to appear in court.
(f) The time specified in the notice to appear
on a citation issued under this section must be at
least five working days after the issuance of the
citation.
(g) The commissioner of public safety is
responsible for the issuance of books containing
appropriate citations and shall maintain a record of
each book and each citation contained in the book. The
commissioner of public safety shall require and retain
a receipt for each book issued to an employee of the
department designated by the commissioner of public
safety to provide investigative services to enforce
provisions of this chapter.
(h) On or before the 10th working day after
issuance of a citation, a peace officer or an employee
issuing a citation under this section shall deposit
the original or a copy of the citation with a court
having jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Upon the
deposit of the citation with the court, the citation
may be disposed of only by trial in the court or other
official action taken by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor. The peace officer or employee who issued
the citation may not dispose of the original or copies
of the citation or of the record of the issuance of
the citation except as required under this subsection
and (i) of this section.
(i) The commissioner of public safety shall
require the return of a copy of each citation issued
under this section and of the copies of each citation
that has been spoiled or on which an entry has been
made and not issued to an alleged violator. The
commissioner of public safety shall also maintain in
connection with each citation issued a record of the
disposition of the charge by the court in which the
original or copy of the citation was deposited.
(j) A citation issued under this section is
considered to be a lawful complaint for the purpose of
prosecution.
(k) Unless the citation has been voided or
otherwise dismissed by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor, or bail has been forfeited under this
section, a person who fails to appear in court to
answer a citation issued under this section,
regardless of the disposition of the charge for which
the citation was issued, is guilty of failure to obey
a citation under AS 12.25.230(b).
(l) The supreme court shall establish a schedule
of bail amounts. The maximum bail forfeiture amount
for a violation may not exceed the maximum fine
specified under (a) of this section for that
violation. The issuing peace officer or employee shall
write on the citation the amount of bail forfeiture
applicable to the violation.
(m) If a person cited for a violation for which
a bail forfeiture amount has been established under
(l) of this section does not contest the citation, the
person may, within 30 days after the date of the
citation, mail or personally deliver to the clerk of
the court in which the citation is filed by the peace
officer or employee
(1) the amount of bail indicated on the
citation for that offense; and
(2) a copy of the citation indicating that
the right to an appearance is waived, a plea of no
contest is entered, and the bail is forfeited.
(n) When the cited person has forfeited bail
under (m) of this section, the court shall enter a
judgment of conviction. Forfeiture of bail is a
complete satisfaction for the violation. The clerk of
the court accepting the bail forfeiture shall provide
the offender with a receipt stating that fact if
requested.
(o) A person cited under this section is guilty
of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b) if
the person fails to pay the bail amount established
under (l) of this section or fails to appear in court
as required.
(p) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if
a person cited for a violation for which a bail
forfeiture amount has been established under (l) of
this section appears in court and is found guilty, the
court may not impose a penalty that exceeds the
forfeiture amount for that violation established under
(l) of this section.
(q) In this section, "department" means the
Department of Public Safety."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 18.70.100(c) is repealed."
HB 71-NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
3:52:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to compensation,
merit increases, and pay increments for certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was Version O.]
3:53:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 71. After
first determining no one wished to testify, Chair Kreiss-Tomkins
closed public testimony on HB 71.
3:54:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH echoed his comments from the prior hearing
on HB 71, noting he was disappointed to see the wage freeze
component removed from the bill. He recalled that when the
provision was placed in the bill and a floor amendment was
subsequently pulled. He assumed that since the language was no
longer in the bill that a floor amendment could be considered
during operating budget deliberations.
3:54:58 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:55:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for clarification on what the bill
does. He did not have any issue with the pay dates proposed;
however, he was unsure of the goal of the bill.
3:56:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that currently if
a governor wanted to donate a portion of his/her salary, the
governor would receive the salary and be taxed for the full
amount. This bill would give the governor an option to waive a
portion of the salary and not be taxed for the entire salary.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the legislature wanted to
limit the option to one individual or should it extend to anyone
who would like that option.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that there was some discussion at
the last committee hearing [on 3/8/18] to potentially allow
commissioners to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his belief that doing so for one
individual would set a bad precedent.
3:58:16 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA),
stated that the bill could be extended to the lieutenant
governor, the commissioners and legislators but not to other
state employees.
3:58:42 PM
KATE SHEEHAN, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations,
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that because certain
salaries were set through legislation or the State Officers
Compensation Commission (SOCC) there would need to be
legislation to waive a portion of the salary in order not to be
taxed on it. That was not the same for other employees, so this
would be limited to the positions that the commissioner just
read.
3:59:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the committee was currently
considering HB 71, so the bill could include everyone.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered that job classes she just listed
were set by the SOCC and included commissioners, legislators,
governor and lieutenant governor. She reported that everyone
else's salaries are set via collective bargaining and the State
Personnel Act; therefore, they are in a different class of
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she did not understand why all
employees cannot donate their salary back.
MS. SHEEHAN responded that under the Fair Labor Standards Act
the employer must pay for all hours worked; even salaried
employees are subject to some requirements; therefore, it was
not an option for some employees to donate their time.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification that a
federal law restricts the donation.
4:01:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that if the governor wanted to
donate to a nonprofit that he would need to accept the money and
donate it and obtain a tax credit. This bill would allow the
governor to reduce his/her salary without incurring a tax
penalty.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes. She related her understanding
that the state is not a charity in terms of tax deductions,
noting she was not a tax attorney. She acknowledged that it
would be foregoing a salary and just not receiving it at all.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why it was not written to include
all the people it could include.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered that Governor Walker was interested
in doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that he could legally donate
the salary, but for the tax issue.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes.
4:03:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his belief that the bill was about
avoiding federal income tax on salary. If one were to decline
the salary the person could not redirect it. He recalled that
he had seen newscasts that indicated Governor Walker wanted to
redirect the salary to police dogs and a myriad of other things.
He related his understanding that this bill allows for tax
avoidance.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE, with respect to redirecting the governor's
salary, advised that the funds would not be remitted to the
governor but would remain in the general fund. He stated that
Governor Walker wanted to be able to reduce his income and not
pay tax on something he did not receive, which would not be an
avoidance of tax.
4:04:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that currently, as a legislator,
if he wanted to donate his salary to the state, he would pay
taxes on his $50,000 salary. He expressed an interest in
opening it up for legislators to waive their salaries.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes.
4:05:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his belief that it was bad form to
do "one-offs" on legislation. He suggested that people could
write a check to a charitable organization.
4:05:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said her problem was that [Governor
Walker's] donation last year was highly publicized. She
suggested that passing this would be like "having your cake and
eating it, too." She suggested that most people who declined
their salaries would not be able to direct it to specific
[programs] and the declined salaries would remain in the general
fund. She surmised the governor would have more authority to
redirect the funds.
4:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the governor could set his
own salary as long as it fell below a certain threshold.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes, that the governor could waive a
portion of his/her salary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the salary could be waived
by month or must it be for a year.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE referred to page 1, line 7, of HB 71, which
read, " ... governor may waiver a portion of the annual salary
...."
4:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON confirmed the governor would waive
his/her salary at the beginning of the year or fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE responded that logistically it would be
figured out and accomplished through payroll. In further
response, she agreed it would likely be administered as an
annual request and waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related her understanding that the bill's
goal would be to waive a portion of the income and not to
redirect the salary to a specific program.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes; that the salary would not be
received by the governor and would remain in the general fund.
4:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that there would
be a cap, so that the governor would determine his/her salary.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered yes; the bill would allow the
governor to waive but not increase his/her salary.
4:10:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for further clarification on the
mechanics of the waiver and if the governor could choose to stop
the waiver.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered that she assumed the administration
would initiate it at beginning of year. She surmised it would
be harder but not impossible for different scenarios; however,
the department has not considered the mechanics yet. She added
that the administration preferred continuity in its processes.
4:11:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the explanation of changes and
time period and it appeared to sunset on June 30, 2019 and asked
for further clarification.
MS. SHEEHAN answered that that the original bill was for a two-
year period consistent with the two-year pay freeze. Version O
removed the section that limited it to the two-year period. In
further response, she stated that the explanation of changes
attempted to explain that the bill could extend past 2019.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for further clarification on the
Section 3 of HB 71 and the reason for the two-week rather than
biweekly salary.
MS. SHEEHAN answered that a semi-monthly pay period payroll is
on the first or fifteenth of each month and the hours vary for
each pay period. A biweekly pay was more consistent since it
contains 75 hours for each pay period, spans two work weeks so
it was clearer. Some employees fall within semi-monthly and
others in biweekly.
4:14:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for further clarification on the
organization that sets the governor's salary. He suggested it
might be helpful to hear from that organization. He remarked
that the 24 versus 26 weeks for semi-monthly or bi-monthly
seemed fine.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE pointed out that this bill was brought up
last year, that the State Officers Compensation Commission
(SOCC) met last fall but did not comment on bill.
4:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Section 2 of the explanation of
changes for HB 71, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 2: New section. Removes language that
temporary salary schedules do not affect salaries of
employees in a bargaining unit represented by a labor
union established under the Public Employment
Relations Act and adds the term "pay period" to the
title. Language that was removed is now found in
section 3 of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to deleted language was in Section
2 of HB 71, which read, "[SALARY RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THEIS SECTION DO NOT AFFECT THE SALARIES OF
EMPLOYEES PROVIDED FOR BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
...." He offered his belief that the deleted language should be
left in the bill.
MS. SHEEHAN answered that the language was still in the bill but
was under Section 3 in proposed [Alaska Statute] AS
39.27.012(c), which Section 2 would also amend. She related her
understanding that the Legislative Legal and Research Services
attorney used this bill as the vehicle to move to the bi-weekly
pay schedule, so they rearranged the bill. The intent was not
to change the provisions in AS 39.27.012.
4:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further clarification on the
non-union exempt employees and wage freeze. She asked for
further clarification on the exempt employees who would be
affected by the pay freeze.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE, after confirming the question, answered that
the original bill would have affected anyone not in the union,
including the executive branch, the legislature, and the
university.
4:18:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related her understanding that this was
the language Representative Birch wanted included in the bill,
but it was removed in Version O.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE offered her belief that was correct.
4:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on how the
federal government accomplishes salary waivers for presidents.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE was unsure but offered to research it for the
committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 71 would be held over.
HB 352-VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
4:20:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act relating to voter
registration; and providing for an effective date."
4:20:50 PM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, on behalf of the House Rules
Committee by request of the governor, paraphrased from her
written testimony, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Today I am here to testify on House Bill 352, a bill
which harmonizes the interaction between the Permanent
Fund Dividend Division and the Division of Elections
in relation to the automated voter registration law
passed by ballot initiative in 2016. This bill makes
the necessary legal changes to enhance efficiency,
reduce state expenditures and improve the citizens'
experience registering or updating their voter
registrations via their permanent fund dividend
application. These functions are achieved by providing
the division the ability to leverage existing tools
and procedures already in use for processing automatic
voter registration between the Division of Elections
and the Division of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Chairman,
leveraging these tools and processes will save the
state more than two hundred thousand dollars every
year while maintaining the legal intent of the
original initiative.
4:22:08 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued to paraphrase her written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2016, Alaska voters passed Ballot Measure #1 which
stipulated that information provided on PFD
applications will be used to register to vote or
update the applicants existing voter registration
unless the applicant "opts out" of voter registration.
The ballot measure became law effective March 1, 2017.
In the inaugural year of implementation, the "opt out
provision in Ballot Measure #1 required the Division
of Elections to send a notice by mail to the PFD
applicants, giving them an opportunity to "opt out".
If the applicant didn't "opt out" within 30 days of
receiving the notice, the PFD application information
was used to register or update the existing
registration record.
4:23:02 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued to paraphrase her written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The administration is 100% supportive of the intent of
Ballot Measure #1 and allowing voters to use
information on their PFD application to register or
update their existing voter registration. In addition
to helping register Alaskan voters, the administration
also supports other goals of the ballot measure which
was to enhance accuracy of voter rolls, and save the
state money.
4:23:29 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued to paraphrase her written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 352 was introduced to make the PFD automatic voter
registration to be fully-automated, more streamlined
and cost-efficient by allowing applicants the
opportunity to "opt-out" of voter registration at the
time they apply for their PFD online or with a paper
application. Adoption of HB 352 would allow the
Division of Elections to more effectively manage this
new program by eliminating the cost of sending
expensive mailings every year, remove the 30 day opt-
out period and allow voters to become registered or
update registrations more timely and reduce staff time
spent on registration activities. Since 2015 and prior
to voter approval of PFD Automatic Voter Registration,
the DOE has made several technological advancements to
improve access, efficiency, and accuracy of voter
registration rolls:
4:24:28 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued to paraphrase her written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
First of all, the DOE has fully implemented an online
voter registration (OLVR) process making registering
to vote or updating an existing voter registration
easy and efficient. When the PFD AVR petition was
being circulated, OLVR was not yet available. Since
being implemented, 49,000+ voters have used the OLVR
system to either register or update their existing
voter registration.
The Division of Elections has also fully automated the
process of receiving voter registration information
electronically from the Division of Motor Vehicles
when Alaskans update their driver's license. When the
PFD AVR petition was being circulated, the DMV
registration process was not automated and
registrations were sent to DOE on paper applications.
Since implementation, 63,000+ voters have either
registered or had their existing voter registration
updated through DMV electronic process.
MS. BAHNKE continued to paraphrase her written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
If HB 352 is adopted, the PFD Automatic Voter
Registration process will closely mimic how the
Division of Elections presently receives and handles a
majority of voter registrations, would save an
estimated $200,000 annually in mailing costs, and
provide for a mechanism by which voter registration
transactions performed by the DOE are fully automated
and reduce paper transactions. Should HB 352 become
law, PFD applicants will have the opportunity to
decline to register to vote or to update their
registration at the time of completing their PFD
application. This change will provide a more
efficient and user-friendly mechanism for voters to
decide to "opt-out' by eliminating the opt-out notice
to reduce paper transaction and save costs in mailing
the opt-out notice to eligible applicants.
4:26:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related his understanding that this bill
would accomplish what was envisioned with same day voter
registration and the automatic voter registration bill
previously passed. He surmised that when people would file an
application for the permanent fund dividend (PFD) that the
applicant would "push a button" if he/she wanted to register to
vote. He was surprised to find out that an applicant was
automatically registered to vote unless the person declined. He
asked for further clarification on whether the button would be
available to applicants during the PFD application process.
MS. BAHNKE responded if HB 352 were to pass, that during the PFD
online application process an individual could opt out of voter
registration or to change to his/her voter registration record.
The applicant would not receive a mailer to ask to opt out. In
further response, she confirmed that "the button" would be
available online to allow people to opt out.
4:28:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his belief that it was a good idea
to have a button on the PFD application for voter registration.
He expressed concern that the initiative would require an "opt
out" form be mailed to PFD applicants. He asked for
clarification on the limitations prohibiting altering
initiatives and whether those restrictions were for one or two-
year period after passage of an initiative.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that technical
changes could be made to initiatives but not substantive
changes.
4:29:22 PM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law, explained the two-year rule,
which she said restricts the legislature from repealing an
initiative; however, a legislature may amend an initiative. At
what point an amendment constitutes a repeal was a
constitutional question; however, the types of amendments being
proposed in this bill do not rise to the level of a repeal, she
said. She reiterated that these amendments were appropriate
ones to be made within the two-year time limit.
4:30:31 PM
MS. BAHNKE, in response to Representative Tuck, responded that
she read her testimony into the record, but she had not
specifically read the language for the initiative. Under
current law, as passed by voters, the division is required to
send a mailer to existing voters with updates to their address
or name and allowed them a 30-day window to return the mailer to
opt out; otherwise, the division would update the information,
she said.
4:31:32 PM
MS. BAHNKE paraphrased the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 352 Sectional Analysis
Section 1: Establishes the voter registration
requirements that an applicant must provide in their
PFD application to register to vote.
Section 2: Establishes that the DOE will use the
application information provided on the PFD
application to register eligible applicants to vote or
update their voter registration if they did not
decline voter registration when completing their PFD
application.
Section 3: Establishes that the DOE will process
eligible voter registration applications received from
the PFD and send voters notification of their
registration status (voter registration card). This
section also removes the requirement to send a paper
opt-out notice to voters who are targeted as new voter
registrations or updated registrations.
Section 4: Removes the requirement for the applicant
to respond to the opt-out notice within 30-days.
Section 5: Establishing that PFD will only submit data
for applicants that did not decline to register to
vote.
Section 6: Establishes that changes made in this law
will be effective for PFD applications starting on
January 1, 2019.
4:32:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she completed her PFD
application online. She did not recall anything that allowed
anyone to opt out of [voter registration].
MS. BAHNKE answered that this year's 2018 application did not
have a box to check, but rather at the end when the applicant
signed the application, an attestation certified that the
information was correct and advising that it would be used for
purposes of voter registration. She explained that this was the
first year that the law was being fully implemented; however,
should HB 352 become law it would be added to the PFD
application process.
4:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that the
initiative allowed people to opt out of the voter registration
process.
MS. BAHNKE answered that was correct; however, current law
requires the Division of Elections to send a mailer to each PFD
applicant identified as a new applicant or one who had updated
his/her information asking the applicant if he/she would like to
opt out. In further response, she agreed that was the reason
the division was trying to create efficiencies with HB 352.
4:34:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the voter registration
initiative did not provide for any opt out provision on the
application form.
MS. BAHNKE answered no.
4:34:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what Section 1 would accomplish since
it asked an applicant to comply "... with the information
required under (a)(1) - (4) and (7) - (9) of this section
included, ...." and he was unsure.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the language citation in "(a)(1) - (4)
and (7) - (9) of this section" referred to the requirements for
voter registration.
4:35:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
4:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Section 1 and 15.07.060(e) and
read, "Section 1. AS 15.07.060(e) is amended to read: (e) For an
applicant requesting initial registration by mail, by facsimile
or other electronic transmission approved by the director under
AS 15.07.050, ...."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether this was clean-up language
since he did not see anything about the permanent fund dividend
application nor did he see it in AS 15.07.060.
MS. BAHNKE referred to page 1, line 6, which specifically
referenced the permanent fund dividend application. She said
this bill would also clean up language to harmonize language
between Title 15 and Title 43. She said that this would
essentially make requirements for voter registration the same as
for PFD applicants.
4:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related her understanding that $360,000
was in the initiative but was not funded.
MS. BAHNKE agreed that the division did not receive an
appropriation to implement the ballot initiative.
4:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the division would use
capital funds during the transition. She asked for
clarification on whether this would save the state money,
resulting in a negative fiscal note for the bill.
MS. BAHNKE responded that the division used operating funds to
sustain the automatic voter registration project. She stated
that if HB 352 were to pass, the division would not need to
request additional funds for the next fiscal year. She offered
her belief that the long-term cost savings would be $200,000 per
year.
4:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding that next year
applicants could click "a box" if they wanted to opt out of the
voter registration process. He related that if an applicant did
not have any changes to their address, they would not need an
update and could opt out of the process. He asked whether this
bill would eliminate mailouts and postage altogether.
MS. BAHNKE responded that if HB 352 became law, the division
anticipated it would have a minimal mailing.
4:40:05 PM
CAROL A. THOMPSON, Absentee & Petition Manager, Absentee &
Petition Office, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, replied that the division anticipated minimal
notifications that would go with paper applications although
those were often data entered prior to [mailing]. She said that
part of the paper application with the PFD would include a check
box to opt out. She reiterated that the division would not have
many mailouts, if any.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned the gavel to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.
4:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL hoped people would not be confused. He
asked how the process would work for someone who wanted to
change his/her [political] affiliation but not his/her address.
He wondered if there would be additional boxes the person could
check.
MS. THOMPSON answered if the person chose not to opt out and
they had no changes to his/her voter registration nothing would
happen. In terms of political affiliation, the PFD application
does not require it, so the person's political affiliation would
remain the same.
4:41:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding that he could
register to vote via PFD; however, if he wanted to register with
an affiliation that he would need to accomplish that through the
Division of Elections.
MS. THOMPSON answered yes. She explained that if a person was a
new voter registrant, the person's political affiliation would
appear as undeclared until the person informs the division
otherwise.
4:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said if someone wanted to register to vote
via the PFD application process and the person does not contact
the Division of Elections, he/she will be a registered voter,
without any political affiliation and will be undeclared. He
surmised there would be an increase in new voters with a "U" or
undeclared status. Most people probably would figure their job
was done once they clicked the box. He asked whether the
division had considered that aspect.
MS. THOMPSON responded that the division selected undeclared [U]
because it would allow the voter the most opportunity in the
primary election to select the ballot option. She said the
division believes that will give the voters the biggest
advantage and the division waits for the voter to contact them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that the voter registration form would
have a party affiliation option. He characterized the PFD voter
process as "voter registration light" since it omits a fairly
strong identification for voter registration. Some people would
think it was somewhat important.
4:43:49 PM
MS. BAHNKE answered that this bill, HB 352, as currently written
would give the Division of Elections (DOE) and Permanent Fund
Dividend Division the authority to adopt regulations to
establish an opt-out process. The DOE has begun discussions
with the PFD Division to determine the best process for an opt-
out process. She related that HB 352 was a harmonizing bill
following the initiative passage, but it also creates an opt-out
process during the PFD application process to save state funding
in mailings.
4:44:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said if someone moves to Alaska and uses the
PFD as a first-time voter, the person would one have an
opportunity to select a party affiliation. He commented that it
would not be a "full option" to register to vote.
MS. THOMPSON acknowledged that political affiliation was not one
of options through PFD voter registration application process.
She said the PFD and voter registration were very similar, with
the exception of the political affiliation.
4:46:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for the total number of registered
voters and how many new voters were added since March when the
initiative passed.
MS. THOMPSON answered that currently 531,335 voters are
registered in Alaska and as of March 27 an additional 15,589
voters were gained. She reported an additional 11,108 voters
updated their residence address or name.
4:47:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH confirmed about 15,000 additional voter
registrations happened as a result of the program.
MS. THOMPSON said that was correct.
4:47:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why not add the party affiliation
because it seemed like it would be simple to do so.
MS. BAHNKE answered that she has not had that discussion with
the PFD Division. She offered to do so and report back to the
committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 352 would be held over.
^Presentation: Indirect Expenditures WWAMI
Presentation: Indirect Expenditure Hearing
4:48:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the committee would discuss
"Indirect Expenditures." He stated that Representative Birch
had requested WWAMI staff be present.
4:49:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said his initial program related to the
WWAMI Regional Medical Education Program (WWAMI) program since
some concern has been voiced that some Alaskan WWAMI students
may not be returning to the state to practice medicine. He
asked how many Alaskan students have applied for the program.
4:50:00 PM
JANE SHELBY, MD; Director, Alaska WWAMI School of Medical
Education, University of Alaska Anchorage, stated that while she
was an employee of the University of Alaska, she is speaking on
behalf of the University of Washington School of Medicine
(UWSOM) to explain their role in the clinical training phase of
the program and to answer any questions the committee may have.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said the audio system in the room was poor.
He asked whether she would repeat her testimony.
4:50:57 PM
DR. SHELBY repeated her testimony.
4:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how many students have applied to the
program and how many positions were reserved for Alaska
students.
4:51:44 PM
DR. SHELBY answered that typically 65-95 WWAMI students apply
each year for 20 seats, but the program has had a decline of 8.5
percent, which she found that worrisome. She wondered the
reason why Alaska students were choosing other medical schools
instead of the WWAMI program.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related his understanding that 65-95
students apply each year for 20 seats, that the program has had
a decline of 8.5 percent.
4:52:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related his understanding that half the
curriculum was conducted in Alaska and half at the University of
Washington (UW). He asked for the ranking of the UW Medicine.
DR. SHELBY answered that it was ranked 10th in the nation for
medical schools. It has been ranked number one in the nation
for primary care for several decades. It was in the top ten for
research schools.
4:53:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how Alaska would recreate this
opportunity without the WWAMI program. He asked what it would
involve for Alaska to create its own medical school.
DR. SHELBY said it would involve a lot of money. She related
that she has compiled some information on two new medical
schools being launched: Washington State University and [the
University of Nevada Las Vegas with a $100 million investment.
4:55:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to additional fees [charged to
Alaskan students in the WWAMI program] to use the University of
Washington medical school facilities since Alaska does not have
a medical school. He asked whether non-Alaskan WWAMI students
pay the same fees and if their respective states absorb the
costs.
DR. SHELBY answered that the fees in question were related to
the partnership participation fees between Alaska and University
of Washington to pay for infrastructure to teach medical
students for clinical training and other required student
services. All WWAMI students pay the same or similar
partnership participation fees; however, Alaska is the only
state that requires its medical students to pay for the state's
portion of the infrastructure partnership fee for the WWAMI
program. In fact, Alaska was the only state in the nation that
required such a payback. She explained that the fees have
nothing to do with tuition or scholarships. Alaska's program
provides the most cost-effective public medical education in the
nation. Rather than paying $20 million per year to run its own
medical school or building brick and mortar facilities and
recruiting faculty, Alaska pays a much smaller amount to use the
accredited University of Washington School of Medicine (UWSOM),
which is a top-ten medical school.
4:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled that the declining number of
students applying for the WWAMI program was attributed to
students applying to other medical schools. He asked for
further clarification on the infrastructure fees and if a
student who attended a non-WWAMI medical school pays for
infrastructure fees or if the fees were associated solely with
the WWAMI program. He wondered about the overall student debt
for non-WWAMI students as compared to those in the WWAMI
program.
DR. SHELBY answered that no other state requires its medical
students repay fees if they do not stay in the respective state
to practice medicine. She reiterated that Alaska is the only
state in the nation that requires a payback for the state's
infrastructure investment. Some schools, such as the University
of Wyoming [a WWAMI school], have scholarships that cover a
substantial portion of their tuition. These schools require a
service payback if the students do not return to practice
medicine in their respective states, but the payback is based on
these medical students receiving a significant reduction in
tuition. Alaska does not provide tuition for its medical
students but covers the WWAMI students portion of the
partnership participation for the infrastructure for the
decentralized medical school. If the WWAMI students do not
return to work in Alaska, the state requires the WWAMI students
to repay the infrastructure fees. She characterized this
repayment as unique since Alaska is the only state that requires
the payback.
5:01:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the other WWAMI states besides
Alaska and Washington - Wyoming, Montana and Idaho - have
medical schools. He further asked whether the payback
requirement was a deterrent for students that might incentivize
them to go to a non-WWAMI medical school.
DR. SHELBY answered that there were no other medical schools in
the other WWAMI states [besides University of Washington]. She
offered her belief that the payback requirement did affect the
recruitment of top students. Factoring in the 50 percent
payback, the Alaska WWAMI program becomes more expensive than
attending Harvard Medical School. She explained that it would
be very detrimental for Alaska to recruit students if the
payback was increased to a full 100 percent. Most students
apply to more than one medical school, which means Alaska must
compete to recruit the best students and while historically,
Alaska has done well, that has been changing. She recalled one
student who was unsure of her specialty ultimately chose to
attend Stanford Medicine for the same cost as she would have if
she had paid the 50 percent payback. She reported that 61
percent of Alaska's WWAMI students return to practice medicine
in Alaska as compared to 49 percent nationwide.
5:03:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation that the full
tuition for Harvard Medical School was less expensive than the
WWAMI program for students who do not return to Alaska and must
reimburse the state for in-state versus out-of-state tuition.
He reiterated his question was if WWAMI was more expensive than
full tuition at Harvard Medicine [medical school].
DR. SHELBY responded yes, that if one combined the average cost
of medical school for Alaskans at $170,463 and including the
payback for infrastructure would total $232,875. She reported
that attending Harvard Medical School would cost $220,000.
5:05:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why University of Washington School
of Medicine was more expensive than other medical schools in the
Lower 48.
DR. SHELBY argued that it was not more expensive. In comparison
with other public medical schools, Alaska WWAMI students would
pay a few thousand dollars less per year than to attend other
medical schools, she said.
5:05:37 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for further clarification on how
University of Washington School of Medicine out-of-state tuition
compares to other Lower 48 medical schools such as Harvard
Medical School.
DR. SHELBY answered that it would be comparable.
5:06:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it was easier for Alaskans
to get accepted at University of Washington School of Medicine
using the WWAMI program since Alaska has 20 positions reserved
than to apply directly to the school [outside of the WWAMI
program].
DR. SHELBY answered that the University of Washington - School
of Medicine (UWSOM) has approximately 7,000 out-of-state, out of
WWAMI region applications each year and accepts approximately
ten students. She attested the 20 guaranteed slots reserved for
Alaska WWAMI students are very valuable since it would be very
difficult to enter into the UWSOM as an out-of-state medical
student.
5:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that was her point. She concluded
that WWAMI provided Alaska's students with an advantage since it
would be much more difficult to achieve acceptance into the
program if they applied directly. She asked what Alaska derives
from the WWAMI program if students do not return to Alaska to
practice medicine.
DR. SHELBY responded that 61 percent of Alaska's medical
students in the WWAMI program come back to Alaska to practice
medicine, which was an excellent rate compared to the national
statistics. In addition, a few students from other WWAMI states
come to Alaska for their rotations. These medical professionals
develop relationships and are recruited to Alaska. The return
rate goes to 70 percent if other WWAMI students are factored in,
she said.
5:08:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her support for the WWAMI program.
She expressed an interest in learning the benefits of sending an
Alaskan medical student through the WWAMI program if the medical
student does not return to Alaska to work.
DR. SHELBY responded that all states participate in public
medical education, but not all students in all states stay in
their home states to practice medicine. She characterized it as
an exchange and a flow of physicians from state to state. She
said if 70 percent of the WWAMI students return to Alaska and 30
percent of Alaska's WWAMI students who graduate practice
elsewhere; that Alaska has provided for the common good of
public medical education in the nation. At the same time,
Alaska benefits from the 70 percent of the Alaskan WWAMI
graduates returning to Alaska, she said.
REPRESENTAIVE LEDOUX reiterated her support for the program.
5:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the cost for
out-of-state tuition at University of Washington School of
Medicine.
DR. SHELBY offered to research out-of-state tuition at
University of Washington and report back to the committee. She
offered a guess that it was about $58,000 per year.
5:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to a graph in members' packets
that reported the cost of attending medical school with and
without payback fees. She said that tuition for public
education was $181,179 and private $206,000. She asked whether
that was for four years of college.
DR. SHELBY answered yes.
5:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled the Alaskan who decided to go to
medical school at Stanford University. She asked for any
benefits this student would have attained from using the WWAMI
program, except the student would not need to repay the 50
percent infrastructure fee.
DR. SHELBY said the rate of return to practice for all WWAMI
states was similar, yet only Alaska required payback of fees.
She was unsure what percentage of students returned solely due
to the payback penalty. She attested that Alaska does an
excellent job selecting students for the WWAMI program,
including asking students about their intentions at the time of
the interview. She reminded members that the applicants'
families live in Alaska. She emphasized the strong return to
practice rate with or without the payback penalties. She
expressed concern about losing prospective students due to the
potential debt, which was comparable to Harvard Medical School
costs for those students who choose not to return to Alaska to
practice medicine.
5:13:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if structuring the program to
increase the payback amount for students who choose not to
return to Alaska. Doing so would sift out students who were
uncertain they wanted to return to Alaska, helping to ensure
that program participants were most likely to return to the
state to practice.
DR. SHELBY was unsure of that approach since fees of 100 percent
would likely be more of a deterrent than an incentive. She
expressed concern that increasing payback fees might harm the
program since top students have other opportunities. She
explained that many students apply to multiple schools, get
accepted at some or all of the schools for which they apply.
Some programs also offer scholarships that Alaska cannot match,
and to add a potential penalty would be detrimental. Some
students who begin a medical school program in their mid to late
20s do not know what practice they will specialize in and that
decision may or may not be conducive to practicing in Alaska.
5:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled earlier testimony that it was
nearly impossible to get into popular schools like the
University of Washington - School of Medicine (UWSOM), with
7,000 applicants for only 10 positions. Although it is very
difficult to get accepted to medical school, the WWAMI program
makes it far more likely for Alaska residents to get accepted to
UWSOM program; one of the top ten schools in the country. It
would seem that these students could apply outside the WWAMI
program and avoid repaying the associated infrastructure fee,
she said.
DR. SHELBY acknowledged that it was very hard to get into
University of Washington - School of Medicine (UWSOM) as a non-
resident; however, in recent years, she has known students who
applied and were accepted to WWAMI, but ultimately chose to go
to other schools, such as the University of New Mexico, the
University of Colorado, the University of Minnesota. Alaskan
students desiring to attend medical school are highly
competitive, so it is not a given that they will apply to the
WWAMI program since these students have other options.
5:17:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:17
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB400 Sponsor Statement 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 ver A 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Fiscal Note DPS 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment 1 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment2 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment3 3.14.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB 71 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB71 ver O 3.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Explanation of Changes 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB352 Sponsor Statement 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Sectional Analysis 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB0352 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Fiscal Note DOE 3.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Fiscal Note DOR 3.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Amendment March 7 2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Doc NEW voter Opt-Out Mailer.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Doc UPDATE voter mailer.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - DOE bullets points.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - Election Policy Work Group Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - Excerpt from 2017 DOE Fiscal & Policy Challenges Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document 15PFVR-Statement-of-Costs.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Letter of Support_Speaker Edgmon.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| H STA Indirect Expenditure Hearings 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |