Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/05/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Transition to the Cloud | |
| HB233 | |
| HB264 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2020
3:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: TRANSITION TO THE CLOUD
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 233
"An Act relating to the display of documents on an electronic
device."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act relating to proof of financial responsibility after
certain motor vehicle accidents."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to voter preregistration for minors at least 16
years of age."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 233
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DISPLAY OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VANCE
02/05/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 264
SHORT TITLE: PROOF OF INSURANCE: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/21/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION AGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOPKINS
02/17/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BILL SMITH, Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Office of Information Technology (OIT)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented and answered questions during the
presentation of "Transition to the Cloud."
NEIL SMITH, Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Office of Information Technology (OIT)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
of "Transition to the Cloud."
JANET OGAN, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
233, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor.
REID HARRIS, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 264 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
JOANN OLSEN, Interim Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
264.
LORI WING-HEIER, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
264.
AMY GALLAWAY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:01:05 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. Representatives
Hopkins, Vance, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the
call to order. Representatives Story and Shaw arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Transition to the Cloud
PRESENTATION: Transition to the Cloud
3:01:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation, entitled "Transition to the Cloud."
3:02:31 PM
BILL SMITH, Chief Information Officer (CIO), Office of
Information Technology (OIT), Department of Administration
(DOA), paraphrased from his written statement, which read:
Thank you to the Chair for the opportunity to appear
before you today. There has been a good deal of
confusion over our cloud migration and I appreciate
the opportunity to provide more detail.
The State of Alaska currently uses both private and
public cloud environments and has recently embarked on
an effort to migrate significant additional computing
and storage requirements to the cloud. By increasing
the use of cloud environments, the State will be able
to achieve significant cost savings by paying for what
we actually consume instead of buying significant
excess capacity to handle spikes in usage. The State
also will be able to create storage and computing
capability without buying new hardware, provide
dynamic disaster recovery by easily locating back-ups
in diverse locations, and secure data in environments
that maintain the strictest compliance to federal
security standards. Additionally, a public cloud-based
environment removes the burden of maintaining and
patching hardware for the systems that are migrated.
We face significant facility and hardware challenges
that will be partially addressed through our cloud
migration. We recently experienced major water leaks
above our Juneau Datacenter jeopardizing critical
resources. Many of our 60 plus server rooms or
datacenters around the State face facility
vulnerabilities. In the Juneau Datacenter alone,
estimates of needed repairs and improvements exceed
$750,000.
Our equipment is also aging. Much of our hardware is
beyond typical life cycle replacement age. An
independent assessment identified a significant
percentage of our physical servers as older than 5
years, some as old as 10 years, representing the
technical debt that we've accumulated. Increasing our
cloud utilization will allow us to consolidate our
remaining physical assets in fewer locations, avoid
costly pending equipment purchases and focus scarce
resources on addressing a smaller number of
challenges.
In order to secure an appropriate cloud environment,
we used a nationally competed contract vehicle. The
National Association of State Purchasing Officers, or
'NASPO', Value Point cloud solution was a nationally
competed contract and runs from September 2016 to
September 2026. The Request for Proposal, or RFP, for
the Master Agreement was advertised by NASPO, and the
State of Alaska's procurement portal (Online Public
Notices). The RFP generated nationwide interest and
proposals from 58 offerors. The RFP also includes a 2-
year refresh and recompete clause to allow additional
vendors to qualify and become part of the Nation-wide
cloud solution provider network. Through the re-
compete process, there are currently 62 authorized
resellers on contract to provide cloud solution
services for States and other public agencies. The
vendor we selected was SHI, who currently provides
other Microsoft licenses and services to the State of
Alaska.
The selection of Microsoft Azure for our current
migration effort was based on several factors. From a
technical standpoint Azure is a natural choice. Much
of our current infrastructure consists of Microsoft
Windows servers and Microsoft SQL databases.
Leveraging Azure saves us significant cost on
licensing for migrated servers and databases and
dovetails well with our current environment from a
developmental tool perspective.
3:06:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there are other entities with
[Microsoft Corporation] Windows that use cloud services from
other providers.
MR. B. SMITH responded that he does not know of any specific
instances of the combination of services that other entities
use.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that from a technical perspective, one
could have Windows computers and store data on an Amazon or
Google cloud.
MR. B. SMITH answered that it is technically possible. He said,
"Where the significance comes into play is ... whenever there
are differences like that, you quite often have to use
additional layers of software for compatibility, so it increases
cost, complexity, and adds potential breakpoints." He mentioned
that he will discuss going to a hybrid cloud environment - a
situation in which potential multiple public vendors would be
used.
MR. B. SMITH continued to paraphrase from his written statement,
which read:
We also conducted an independent assessment of our
readiness for Azure migration, which included a total
cost of ownership analysis based on our current server
volume and use. The assessment projected our server
use and right sizing into the Azure pricing structure
to provide an anticipated cost and savings level.
An increased focus on cloud computing also produces a
skill lift for State of Alaska information technology
professionals. The use of a hybrid cloud approach
allows professional growth and skill development among
the State of Alaska workforce. It is important to
understand that our cloud migration involves
outsourcing the location of physical assets, NOT jobs.
Our IT professionals will continue to manage and
maintain our servers much as they do today; they will
develop a skillset in cloud storage, application,
networking, and management solutions. We have secured
a series of 32 technical courses that will be provided
by Microsoft at no cost to the state. These courses
range from cloud fundamentals to advanced technical
skills and offer the opportunity for professional
certification testing at no cost to our employees.
Approximately 100 State of Alaska employees have
already taken advantage of classes and more are
scheduled. In addition to these formal classes,
Microsoft Consulting Services will be providing
initial project support through a temporary, no cost
engagement and helping the State of Alaska build
capability within our teams to continue migration
beyond the initial effort and provide long term
management of our hybrid cloud environment.
Through the Alaska Administrative Productivity and
Excellence, or AAPEX project, as well as other
independent assessments, it has been documented that
our statewide information technology environment is
too complex and dated to provide the services that our
customers expect with the resources we have.
We owe Alaskans more. We owe our information
technology professionals more.
The cloud migration, in tandem with the AAPEX project,
will enable us to gain efficiencies and focus
resources to provide a modern and effective
information technology environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you. We look forward to answering your questions.
3:09:25 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for greater detail on the vendor
and its relationship to Microsoft.
MR. B. SMITH replied that Microsoft does not actually sell
enterprise agreements (EA) directly to customers; they use a
reseller model. All the Microsoft EAs owned by the State of
Alaska are through a reseller - Software House International
(SHI). Other companies have been used by the State with poor
results; SHI has been used for several years with good results.
He confirmed that SHI's role is like that of a car dealership
offering different options to meet customer needs.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how much of the State's data
storage would be shifted to the cloud under this proposal and
what would be the end goal.
MR. B. SMITH answered that he does not have a firm answer. He
stated that if the State wants to take full advantage of the
cloud environment, it must be very careful about what is put
into the cloud and the way it is put there. Microsoft Azure has
several different variations: under some variations, it is
appropriate for the State to place a server into the cloud as
is; under others, it is appropriate to reprogram the server to
take advantage of tools that exist within the cloud that don't
exist in the current platform. He added that as the department
puts together the project, Microsoft Consulting Services - which
has a great deal of experience with such migrations - will offer
its expertise to do another "deeper dive" assessment of State
data and to determine what to put into the cloud, in what
sequence, and what format, to maximize savings. He maintained
that what the department does not want to do is to just lift
data off servers and put it into the cloud and "call it good,"
because there are applications that are not appropriate for the
cloud or as cost effective in the cloud. He offered that the
independent assessment that was done - looking at the State's
cloud readiness - identified that about 94 percent of the
State's production servers were available to be transferred to
the cloud. He mentioned that the assessment did not look at
storage assets, but at production servers with applications and
computing functions. He said, "Our in-state is not predefined,
but I would fully expect that we end up with a hybrid
environment where we have a public cloud presence, we have cloud
as we do today in our data center, and that we also have some
on-premise functions depending what the requirements are." He
concluded by saying that the assessment identified the
possibilities, but it is up to the due diligence of the State to
determine what should [migrate to the cloud] and the appropriate
format.
3:14:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the day-to-day computer
work of State agencies and the Alaska State Legislature would be
shifted to the cloud.
MR. B. SMITH responded that it depends on the individual
applications and the appropriate platforms. He maintained that
the result would be a mix: cloud-based applications - such as
the executive branch Microsoft office suite; State data center
applications in a private cloud - such as the Oracle
[Corporation] business applications, and on-premise environments
elsewhere; it would be transparent to the users.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the data currently on the Oracle
cloud is shifting to the Azure cloud or whether there would be
multiple cloud platforms as new data shifts to Azure.
MR. B. SMITH replied that he doesn't anticipate the Oracle
applications shifting to the cloud, as they are appropriately
located.
3:15:52 PM
NEIL SMITH, Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO), Office of
Information Technology, Department of Administration (DOA),
confirmed that end users would not notice a difference.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked about accessing data in the event
of an earthquake or other disaster that severs the [fiber-optic]
cable that connects Alaska to the Lower 48.
MR. B. SMITH answered that it is incumbent on the department as
it designs the [information technology (IT)] environment to
ensure appropriate disaster recovery; that includes the undersea
cable that will be laid in the next few years and the
terrestrial link. He said that access continues to grow, but it
is the current access that will be considered in the assessment
to determine the design of the platform. He said, "We will not
be throwing data into the cloud in another location that needs
to have a presence here in Alaska." The assessment will
identify critical functions and disaster recovery options and
ensure appropriate access to critical infrastructure.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for comment on latency in terms of data
transmission from the Azure cloud.
MR. B. SMITH replied that the Azure cloud data center is
worldwide; the State's focus would be the northwest area,
therefore, Washington or Portland, Oregon; the exception would
be the more secure functions, which would reside in Arizona.
3:17:53 PM
MR. N. SMITH defined latency as the time it takes for data to
travel; therefore, servers in the Lower 48 would add time to
data transfer. He offered that some applications handle that
distance better than others; part of the assessment will be to
determine which applications can handle latency better -
[electronic mail "email"] is an example. He maintained that
some data needs to be in Alaska on-premise; there is an Oracle
cloud technology presence in the State's data center that
addresses latency, and Azure has similar technologies - called
Edge cloud - which bring the equipment closer to Alaska to
address latency.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the equipment is based in Alaska
and whether that would improve functionality when the data is in
the Lower 48.
MR. N. SMITH answered that it is equipment that resides in
Alaska, is owned by a cloud provider, and is used just like any
cloud service.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether transition poses an increased
security risk.
MR. N. SMITH answered, "Not during transition times." He said
that for migration to Microsoft Azure, connectivity is through
dedicated circuits with in-transit encryption.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether migration to the cloud
provides increased security, or whether the State is already "at
the top of the line" in security for its systems.
MR. B. SMITH maintained that there is always opportunity for
improvement in security; however, with the Microsoft Azure cloud
environment, there are several types of engagements, and
depending on the type of engagement, there is shared security
responsibility with the provider. He maintained that this is
true for all cloud environments. He said that the State still
has a significant cloud security responsibility in terms of
developing workflows and implementing, managing, and monitoring
processes; however, the security of the hardware would now be
Microsoft's responsibility. One of the critical aspects is
Microsoft's federally compliant - "FedRAMP" - certifications for
its datasets. The State does not have to worry about whether
the servers on which its data resides are patched to the latest
security level; but it does have to worry about the Alaska "side
of the equation." He gave an example: Alaska could have the
best vault in the world, but if it leaves the front door open,
it's in trouble. He maintained that migration to the cloud does
not take away the State's security responsibility, but it allows
the department to focus its security responsibilities on the
processes, the front-end, and the management of entering and
extracting data. The State will also be monitoring the shared
security responsibility with Microsoft.
3:22:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for a definition of public and private
cloud.
MR. B. SMITH answered that public cloud means that the cloud is
owned by a third party, but that does not mean there is access
by another entity; private cloud means that Alaska owns the
infrastructure, but it is configured in such a way that it
behaves like a cloud environment. The department's overall
strategy, as it collapses servers into either the cloud or the
State data centers, is to develop and enhance private cloud
structures to get the functional benefits of a cloud while still
residing on State equipment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for confirmation that DOA has a private
cloud in Alaska on which it stores data from multiple locations
on State equipment.
MR. B. SMITH concurred.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for comment on how the State moved from
on-premises to on-premises with the "VMware," how it changed
server utilization, and how much data is in the State's private
cloud versus on-premises.
MR. N. SMITH replied that in 2010, the State had one server for
every eight State of Alaska employees; they were primarily
physical servers. He stated that the process for "virtualizing"
the servers consists of "taking a picture" of a physical machine
and operating it in the virtual machine. Data is migrated
seamlessly with very little down time, and State departments can
share infrastructure and hardware. He said that in 2015, the
State consolidated much of its data storage; therefore, 80
percent of State data is in shared-storage infrastructure.
There still is considerable overhead, which will be addressed
when the State migrates to the cloud; the State will pay for
only what it uses.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the percentage of data - except for
[Microsoft] Office 365, which is already on a cloud-based
platform - that is currently on-premises versus in a private
cloud. He asked the relationship between VMware and the private
cloud.
MR. N. SMITH responded that all the departments are primarily
using the VMware to create the virtual machines.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether that was true for data on-premises
as well as the State-managed private cloud.
MR. N. SMITH answered correct. He added that "lines of
business" are using VMware for their individual servers, and the
State is trying to collapse servers onto shared infrastructure
as well.
3:26:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there is a per-unit cost
comparison between the various clouds - private, [Microsoft]
AZURE, Google [LLC], Amazon [.com, Inc.].
MR. B. SMITH answered that the Microsoft AZURE cloud is a very
good fit for Alaska; clouds aren't a commodity feature, as they
each have their strengths and weaknesses. The cost for
Microsoft AZURE is part of the independent assessment; the
department is comfortable with that cost as it moves forward;
the caveat is that the assessment assumes a certain amount would
be moved to the cloud. He said that 94 percent of servers were
available and ready to migrate to the cloud. He stated that the
assessment estimated that about 20 percent of servers could not
be migrated. He offered that the State has had several
independent assessments; all have come up with a range of
servers statewide between 2,800 and 3,100. The independent
cloud-readiness assessment that offered the total cost of
ownership price of moving to the cloud assumed that 1,941
servers would be moved. Moving all the servers would not be the
best effective use of the cloud.
3:29:06 PM
MR. N. SMITH, in response to Representative Hopkins's question
about the State's total amount of data, cited a 2015 study which
reported at least 12 petabytes.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether it would be accurate to assume
that a little more than half of the State's data would be
migrated to the cloud.
MR. B. SMITH replied that he estimates the amount to be less
because storage was not factored into the assessment, which is
considerable. He said that one of the key cost-saving drivers
is that the State would only pay for storage it uses; whereas,
capital costs for hardware requires the State buy "the entire
machine." He stated that the assessment considered "right-
sizing" and indicated that over 90 percent of the State's
servers were overcapacity - excess capacity of almost 1.75
petabytes. He added that initially, less than half of the data
would be migrated to the cloud, but as the department moves
forward, it will be able to assess better what needs to go in
the right format.
3:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 3 of the DOA document,
entitled "SOA Server Data and Cloud Migration Response to
Request for Information House State Affairs Committee March 5,
2020," included in the committee packet, which read: "Of
approximately 1,960 servers used for rate building, almost half
(918) exist in the departments themselves and are not managed by
OIT." She asked for an explanation of why the servers are not
all managed by OIT, and whether the department is planning to
transition to management of servers.
MR. B. SMITH answered that OIT does not manage all the State
servers and data. He added that he cannot speak to all the
details following implementation of the Administrative Order
(AO) No. 284; however, currently OIT has responsibility for most
of the commodity services, and those services are used
statewide. Part of that responsibility is making available
server management and part is making available data center space
for storage; however, it is up to the departments whether they
want to take advantage of what OIT is offering, and several have
not made that move. He mentioned that the AAPEX initiative has
determined the process ahead: the assessment phase has
occurred; OIT and the departments are working together to define
the projects that need to be put in place and executed to
improve statewide IT maturity; and the projects will be
reviewed, approved, and executed. He maintained that he is not
certain what the end state will be; AO No. 284 envisions
centralization; but it needs to be done in a manner that can be
supported and that meets the needs of the customers - the
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for a description of the achievements
expected through the 36-month contract.
MR. B. SMITH answered that the EAs are three-year agreements;
that is a standard length; it is not performance- or milestone-
based. As costs were evaluated, assumptions were made about the
levels of migration over time. He said that the department is
confident that the levels are appropriate and achievable. He
said that not all applications will migrate to the cloud in
their current forms; some will need reprogramming before
migration.
3:36:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether in the case of moving a VMware
package of data onto the cloud, the State would still use the
VMware vendor. He asked whether the functionality of the VMware
would migrate to Microsoft.
MR. N. SMITH answered that the State would no longer go through
a VMware reseller but through Microsoft under the EA agreement.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether it is an equivalent product but a
different company.
MR. N. SMITH answered that it is an equivalent product and the
same license but purchased through Microsoft.
MR. B. SMITH added that one of the key aspects of the cloud
migration design hinged around maintaining VMware presence; it
is the VMware presence that gives the State the ability to
change to another cloud provider later, if desired.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the different cloud-based services
have different contract structures with respect to switching to
another cloud later.
MR. N. SMITH replied that OIT has had lengthy "exit strategy"
discussions. He mentioned that since VMware tools are used in-
house currently, the IT staff are already familiar with them.
He added that those same tools would allow the State to migrate
servers back to on-premise or to another cloud. He offered that
billing under other cloud environments can be very complex; the
State gets significant discounts with Microsoft and AZURE both
for Windows Server and [Microsoft] SQL Server.
3:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how migration would affect
retaining State [IT] jobs.
MR. B. SMITH relayed that currently State IT professionals work
on virtual machines. He maintained that with the cloud, there
would be no difference. The workers would continue to program
and manage the State's servers, and in addition, would be able
to take advantage of the tools that are inherent in the cloud to
create the most efficient program possible.
3:42:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there would ever be a need
to wait for a Microsoft worker to come to Alaska for repairs.
MR. N. SMITH replied that the migration includes determining
disaster recovery options; there are replications of servers;
there are many data centers located in various locations; very
little downtime would be expected for locating a copy of the
server and continuing work.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there would be any need for
a Microsoft technician or programmer to come to Alaska to work
on something under the contract.
3:45:26 PM
MR. B. SMITH responded that for what the State puts into the
AZURE cloud, the answer is no. Under a hybrid cloud
environment, the State would still have Windows servers on-
premise. If something happened to those servers, it would be
outside the cloud agreement.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS referred to the "Microsoft Server and Cloud
Enrollment" agreement, included in the committee packet, and
asked for more detail on the nature of the contract and the
fees.
MR. B. SMITH replied that the EA includes a commitment to
Microsoft that the State will consume $15 million in 36 months.
That means that the State will be billed monthly based on the
resources consumed on the cloud; if after 36 months the State
has not consumed that amount, it will be invoiced for the
balance and returned a credit good for 12 months. He stated
that OIT has mapped out the State's usage and expects to migrate
enough to cover the commitment. He said that regarding the
Microsoft consulting services agreement, there are services
listed with pricing for a total of $1,508 million; the amount
represents the value of the services. There is a stipulation on
the document that says that Alaska will be billed nothing for
the services; the cost is covered by a 10 percent incentive-
based credit from Microsoft. Since the State is not mature and
self-sustained in its use of the cloud environment, it needs the
expertise from Microsoft to help the State set up the
environment properly and make good choices as it moves to the
cloud. State employees will receive formal training and
training side-by-side with Microsoft consultants.
3:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation that the State
pays for the $15 million regardless of whether it is used, and
the training courses would be included in the $15 million.
MR. B. SMITH responded yes to both questions. He described the
series of trainings for staff.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether through this agreement and
migration, the State of Alaska would be dependent on the path it
has taken and at risk of much increased costs in the future.
MR. B. SMITH mentioned that issue being a key factor in set-up.
MR. N. SMITH responded that the State is building in tools to
allow flexibility, in anticipation of that possibility. He said
that there are metered and unmetered circuits, which the State
must consider for financial efficacy.
3:52:43 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an explanation of "metered"
and "unmetered" circuits. He restated his question: Is there a
path dependency, as the State enters the contract and goes down
the path with AZURE?
MR. B. SMITH answered that OIT is working to ensure that there
is not; increasing the State's maturity level and understanding
is important; Microsoft will assist with that. He emphasized
that OIT is absolutely considering the end state and the
possibility of a better option revealing itself in 36 months.
He explained that metered and unmetered refers to "unlimited
path" versus "charged by use"; unmetered is cheaper up to a
certain volume. He reiterated the importance of keeping options
open to make the best choices.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated the answer: OIT is working
hard to avoid a path dependency, but there is always the
possibility of one.
MR. B. SMITH said that it depends on how OIT sets up the system;
avoiding a path dependency is within OIT's control; and staff is
working hard to make the right choices.
3:55:11 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the yearly savings ten years
from now, when cloud migration is fully realized.
MR. B. SMITH replied that the way IT expenses are tracked
currently, the State does not have a great reference point for
what it spends today. He offered that accounting for IT
spending across the State is part of the AAPEX initiative. He
said that the third-party independent assessment looked at total
cost of ownership for the 1,941 servers based upon industry
standard rates and compared it with the cost of the same servers
after migration to the AZURE environment. That study showed
significant cost reduction. The State has over 60 data centers
around the state; they belong to so many different agencies at
so many locations that the cost of power is unknown. He
maintained that there are gaps in information regarding the
total cost of ownership, which includes the equipment, the
monthly rate, the software, the heating and cooling, and other
elements. The AAPEX project will provide that information.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a guess on the cost reduction.
MR. B. SMITH stated that the current cost of the 1,941 servers,
based on the third-party independent assessment's calculation
using industry standard rates, is estimated to be $45 million
annually not including labor. The estimate for the same servers
moved to the cloud under the AZURE environment - reduced in size
to only what is needed - is $6 million. The reduction in cost
would be about $39 million. He reiterated that labor was not
factored into the calculations. He said that OIT believes the
cost of the State's IT to be approximately $250 million per
year; subtracting the $83 million cost of labor, the independent
assessment calculated the savings to be about 23 percent. A
Gartner [Inc., an IT research and consultancy company] analysis
indicated that the average savings after a massive cloud
migration is about 21 percent, which is in line with the 23
percent calculated through the independent assessment.
Commissioner Kelly Tshibaka (DOA) has consulted with other third
parties who have concurred with those percentages. Mr. B. Smith
reminded the committee that the transition time cost is not
factored into the calculation, only the cost after migration.
4:00:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her support for finding
efficiencies, better services, and savings.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for information on communication with
staff on the changes.
MR. B. SMITH answered that transparent communication is one of
his priorities and one shared by Commissioner Tshibaka. The
commissioner has held monthly townhalls with DOA. Mr. B. Smith
sends out all-IT informational updates every two to three weeks.
Additionally, as part of the AAPEX initiative, OIT has held five
to six briefings and information sessions on the assessment. As
the cloud migration moves forward, OIT is working hard to
publish key performance indicators and progress reports. The
department continues to improve transparency and information
sharing; it understands workforce concerns; and it anticipates
the time when the State's efficiency, performance, and customer
satisfaction is so much greater than currently and can move into
high level IT functions, artificial intelligence, and data
analytics.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for confirmation that there is a
feedback link for staff.
MR. B. SMITH replied that MR. N. Smith hosts weekly meetings
with OIT officers and other "thought leaders."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with the importance of more
communication with staff.
HB 233-ELECTRONIC DISPLAY OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
4:06:26 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 233, "An Act relating to the
display of documents on an electronic device."
4:06:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE presented HB 233 as prime sponsor by
paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read:
We as consumers enjoy the benefits of having access to
information in the palm of our hand. The State of
Alaska recognizes the demand for mobile device use and
is currently in the process of allowing users to
provide proof of state required documents such as
licenses, permits and insurance to a peace officer via
mobile device.
We Alaskans also treasure our privacy and have
enshrined that right in our state constitution under
Article 1 sec. 22 Right to Privacy- The right of the
people to privacy is recognized and shall not be
infringed.
HB 233 safeguards the privacy of individuals who
display any state required document to peace officers
by ensuring that displaying proof of a required
document does not constitute consent for a peace
officer to access other contents of the electronic
device.
In laymen's terms, if a Wildlife Trooper asks to see
your fishing license, the Trooper does not
automatically have a right to search other content on
your device. You must give permission for the Trooper
to view anything besides the license required by law.
The two examples of this already specified in statute
are in AS.28.22.019 (d) pertaining to the display of
proof of motor vehicle liability insurance, and AS
03.05.078 (b) pertaining to display of proof of
registration when transporting industrial hemp.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that as the state modernizes its
practices allowing documents to be viewed on an electronic
device, the proposed legislation would specify those documents
allowed by law to be displayed on a device.
4:10:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why the protections under "reasonable
search and seizure" laws would not cover these instances.
4:11:07 PM
JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, agreed that those protections exist; however, the
proposed legislation is offered to proactively address future
circumstances regarding documents displayed by electronic
device.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the laws about warrants for
search and seizure do not mention electronic devices.
MS. OGAN answered, "Not that I'm aware of."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his support for the proposed
legislation and added that knowing definitively where the line
is in terms of the existing protections for civil liberties
would be helpful for reference. He mentioned that there is
currently a baseline level of civil liberty protection and asked
what marginal new protection would be offered under HB 233.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that a peace officer must have
probable cause or come with a warrant. The proposed legislation
would provide Alaska residents the assurance that they are in
control of the information on their devices and must give
consent, rather than the officer being in control. People often
feel vulnerable when presenting information to a peace officer.
With a paper license, only that information is available; with a
mobile device, there is a much greater amount of personal
information. She said, "It does provide that assurance to
Alaskans that your privacy and your right to your information is
in your hands."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that beyond the "letter of the
law," HB 233 would offer citizens confidence through reasserting
and emphasizing their rights.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for any other documents that can be
displayed electronically, outside of hunting and fishing
licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that the only other item allowed
to be displayed electronically is [proof of] registration for
transporting industrial hemp. Over the past few years,
automobile insurance has moved to being online. She said that
instead of specifying each instance of allowable electronic
documents, the proposed legislation was drafted to encompass
all allowable documents so that none would "fall into the
cracks" as Alaska moves into the future. She mentioned that the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is attempting to put
more licenses and permits online through an application (app).
Many Alaskans are looking forward to using that means for
presenting documents.
[HB 233 was held over.]
HB 264-PROOF OF INSURANCE: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS
4:16:34 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act relating to proof
of financial responsibility after certain motor vehicle
accidents."
4:17:08 PM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 264, relayed that HB 264 addresses
the statute on unsatisfied judgements [AS 28.20.330(b)]; upon
receiving an unsatisfied judgement, one must obtain a proof of
financial responsibility (POFR) - commonly referred to as an SR-
22 certificate. He pointed out that an SR-22 is not insurance,
but a certificate that states that a high-risk individual has
insurance. He defined that a high-risk individual is someone
with a "driving under the influence (DUI)" conviction or an
"unsatisfied judgement." An unsatisfied judgement is a
judgement issued against someone who had a motor vehicle
accident causing death, bodily injury, or damage to property
over $501, and who did not pay for damages. Subsequently, the
person's license is revoked by the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) [Department of Administration (DOA)] and is not returned
unless and until the judgement is staid or satisfied.
MR. HARRIS turned the committee's attention to the document from
DMV, included in the committee packet, entitled "SR-22
Insurance," to review the time requirements for an SR-22: for a
first offense driving while intoxicated (DWI), the requirement
is 5 years; a second offense is 10 years; a third offense is 20
years; a fourth offense is a lifetime requirement. In addition
to a fourth offense DWI, just one unsatisfied judgement also
results in the lifetime requirement. He offered that under HB
264, when the judgement is staid or satisfied, the SR-22 would
be required for 3 years, not a lifetime.
MR. HARRIS referred to House Bill 409 [introduced during
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, (2017-2018)], which
addressed unsatisfied judgements and DUIs was not supported by
DOA. The proposed legislation only addresses unsatisfied
judgement.
MR. HARRIS referred to testimony during the presentation on
"Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry" [2/27/20 House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting] in which the testifier offered that
paying for the SR-22 was very difficult for someone released
from prison and struggling with many financial challenges. Mr.
Harris relayed that the Division of Insurance [Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)] provided
information that the SR-22 can cost from 5-50 percent of a
standard premium. The testifier stated that he was paying
[$500] per month to retain a driver's license. Mr. Harris
expressed his belief that the requirement targets low-income
people and people who are trying to improve themselves. The
intent of the proposed legislation is to remedy that.
4:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why 3 years was chosen for the length
of time [an SR-22 would be required].
MR. HARRIS responded that 3 years was arbitrarily chosen but
seemed to represent an appropriate length of time for someone to
prove he/she has "fixed" the mistake.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his desire for the legislature
to evaluate categorically the value that SR-22 offers to the
public. The SR-22 laws were put into statute before Alaska
required car insurance; HB 264 offers a temporary fix; the 3
years is arbitrary.
MR. HARRIS referred to the Legislative Research Services
document, dated 11/21/19 and entitled "SR-22 Automobile
Insurance Requirements," not included in the committee packet,
to describe the requirement put in place in [1959], which read:
The legislature is concerned over the rising toll of
motor vehicle accidents and the suffering and loss
thereby inflicted. The legislature determines that it
is a matter of grave concern that motorists shall be
financially responsible for their negligent acts ...."
MR. HARRIS added that the state's mandatory insurance laws were
enacted many years later.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether SR-22 being a lifetime
requirement was enacted under HB 49 [signed into law 7/8/19] or
previously.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his understanding is that HB
49 did not address the SR-22 requirements but did address the
reentrant's ability to get back a driver's license to become a
productive citizen.
4:26:47 PM
JOANN OLSEN, Interim Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), responded that she was not
familiar with HB 49.
MR. HARRIS offered to follow up.
4:27:25 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), explained
that an SR-22 filing is a certificate to the state that the
person has liability insurance on the vehicle he/she is driving
or to which the person has access.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an explanation for why an SR-
22 is needed when car insurance is mandatory. He opined that it
seems redundant.
MS. WING-HEIER answered that she cannot explain why but knows
that when renewing vehicle tags, a box verifying insurance must
be checked. Similarly, the SR-22 serves as a second
certification of liability insurance for an individual with an
unsatisfied judgement or with the violation convictions -
mentioned by Mr. Harris - in order to drive or have access to a
vehicle. She defined "have access to" as meaning a vehicle that
the person may drive but not necessarily own; it is the vehicle
itself that requires the SR-22.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the SR-22 costs so much when
premiums are paid to the insurance company and the SR-22 merely
verifies that the insurance policy is in place.
MS. WING-HEIER answered that part of the reason is the violation
itself. She explained the other part as follows: The division
looked at 23 insurance companies in the state and only 6 were
providing SR-22s to insurers who requested them. The insurers
can charge rates based on a driver's record; for a record with a
DUI or reckless driving, insurance will cost more. The SR-22 is
somewhat of a "scarlet letter" indicating that there is a reason
the person has been asked to keep a certificate on file with the
state; the insurers are, therefore, hesitant to insure someone
with an SR-22. That person may be moved to a sub-standard
insurance market and have a surcharge in addition. The
surcharge is strictly for liability insurance but is applied to
the premium's comprehension and collision coverages as well.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 264 would be held over.
HB 250-VOTER REGISTRATION AGE
4:31:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 250, "An Act relating to voter
preregistration for minors at least 16 years of age."
4:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS presented HB 250 as prime sponsor by
paraphrasing from his written statement, which read:
Co-Chairs Kreiss-Tomkins and Fields, fellow members of
the State Affairs Committee Committee, thank you for
hearing this HB 250 today.
For the record, my name is Grier Hopkins,
Representative for House District 4, and I'd like to
mention that Amy Gallaway, a civics educator out of
Fairbanks and Alaska's Teacher of the Year is online
to answer any questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on
this important issue. I am honored to sponsor HB 250
as part of ongoing efforts in the legislature to take
a detailed look at ways to improve our electoral
process, but also bring a new focus to how we prepare
young Alaskans to become active and informed voters.
This legislation was inspired largely by discussions
I've had with young Alaskans, local educators, and
fellow legislators.
Fundamentally, HB 250 is about increasing access,
knowledge, and participation in our democracy. HB 250
would allow young Alaskans who are at least 16 years
old to pre-register to vote. It does not change the
current legal age for voting, it simply extends the
ability for young Alaskans to voluntarily pre-register
to vote before they become eligible voters.
Additionally, this bill does not affect the automatic
voter registration through the PFD application for a
few key reasons. The automatic voter registration only
applies to Alaskan citizens who meet the eligibility
requirements to be able to vote. 16 and 17-year old's
cannot legally vote, and will therefore not be
included in the automatic registration if they file
for their PFD. Through the expansion of our statute to
include citizens who are 16 years old, we create a
longer period of time where young Alaskans are aware
of the rights they will gain upon turning 18 and can
begin to develop the habits of informed and engaged
voters.
Moreover, allowing pre-registration gives our
teachers, families, and communities the tools to
develop young Alaskans into informed and confident
voters. When students turn 16, they have already begun
taking government, history, and civics classes.
Providing pre-registration opportunities in the
classroom offers real and tangible steps for students
to take that give them real world experience.
Additionally, pre-registration is increasingly common
across the nation, with 23 states and the District of
Columbia offering some form of preregistration before
an individual turn [sic] 18. The results in these
places have shown increases in younger voter
participation and the indicators of beginning long
term voting habits.
4:34:50 PM
For example, in Florida, analysis of state voter files
indicates that in 2008 pre-registrants were 4.7% more
likely to vote than those who registered after they
turned eighteen and the number of preregistrations
went from 65,000 in 2004, to nearly 78,000 in 2008.
Additionally, a study from Duke University, by John
Holbein and D. Hillygus, which is attached on Basis,
found that preregistration increases the probability
that young voters will participate in elections by an
average of 2 percentage points to 13 percentage points
and has similar impacts on young Democrats and young
Republicans.
Furthermore, in an additional study, "Voter Pre-
registration Programs success of preregistration is
maximized when election officials and educators act as
partners. This is why we have been working with local
educators, organizations, and stakeholders to
determine the best method to approach this. I'd like
to note that we have received letters of support from
Amy Gallaway, a civics teacher and Alaska Teacher of
the Year, the Alaska Center Education Fund, Kids
Voting North Alaska, Native Movement, and Maida
Buckley, the 2019 Governor's Arts & Humanities Awards
and former educator.
I have been going back to my high school alma mater
for about 10 years and every year that teacher asks
the class, "who here is registered to vote?" Out of an
over 20 student class, only a few raise their hands.
HB 250 will allow more of those engaged citizens to
raise their hands and participate in our democracy.
We have before us the potential to proactively work to
engage young Alaskans in a new and innovative manner.
HB 250 empowers families, communities and educators to
foster civic engagement from a younger age, while also
adding an additional opportunity to ensure that every
citizen in Alaska is registered to vote.
That concludes my presentation and I will be happy to
answer any questions the committee may have.
4:37:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Representative Hopkins
considered a bill to allow students to vote at age 16. She
mentioned that she has heard interest from students, who have
stated that such a law would encourage not just the students to
vote more and talk about issues, but families as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answered that in some locations, 16-year-
olds may vote in local elections. He expressed his desire to
keep the bill simple and to utilize the approach offered under
HB 250 to encourage dialogue and civic engagement, thus,
expanding voter participation for state, local, and national
elections.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that the Alaska State
Constitution states that the voting age is 18; changing it would
require a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the fiscal note (FN) analysis,
included in the committee packet, which read:
The division will need to consult with the Department
of Law to determine if the information of these minors
is protected and not intended to be released in any
lists available from the division.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out the concern for privacy of
minors, because the Division of Elections (DOE) does not
interact with minors. She asked whether HB 250 would require
more regulations for DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that the $75,000 in the FN would
be used to promulgate regulations if needed. The new voters
under HB 250 would not be active voters, therefore, would not be
on the voter rolls. Much of the voter information is public.
Currently someone 17 years of age may register to vote if
turning 18 within 30 days of an election; they are minors when
they register. The $75,000 would provide financial assistance
to the division to implement the process.
4:41:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why Representative Hopkins feels it
is important to change the registration age to 16 to increase
participation, when there is already an opportunity for early
registration at age 17. She mentioned that she has always taken
her children to the voting place and given them a sample ballot
to read and vote. She maintained that encouraging participation
could be done without burdening DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answered that he is a strong advocate for
finding ways to enfranchise more voters. He maintained that the
FN of $75,000 would not be a significant burden to DOE. He
offered that it is critical to give younger and engaged citizens
the opportunity to practice the skill of being a voter and being
engaged. He said that his parents also took him voting. He
stated that younger voters are in the lowest percentage of voter
turnout; they may be engaged as young children but then
engagement drops off after high school. He offered that
registering would not be required, but it would offer an
opportunity to grow into the process and give teachers another
tool for bringing students into the discussion and process.
4:45:30 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added that there is data and evidence
that show increased ability to (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE mentioned that part of the engagement of
voting is being registered to vote, and currently in Alaska,
automatic registration occurs through the permanent fund
dividend (PFD) application. She asked how automatic
registration would impact young voters registering early under
HB 250.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS answered that the young voters would not
be eligible for automatic voter registration through the PFD
application, because they would not be 18. Automatic
registration begins once a person turns 18.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there are other states with
automatic voter registration.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied that he didn't know but directed
her to the bill packet which lists the 23 states with pre-18
voter registration and the options.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added that there are 20-25 states with
some form of automatic voter registration but none like the
automatic registration through the Alaska PFD application.
4:48:06 PM
AMY GALLAWAY testified in support of HB 250 as the 2020 Alaska
Teacher of the Year and addressed Representative Vance's
question about the need for early voter registration at age 16.
She stated that when she asks her students ages 14-18 about
accompanying their parents to the voting place, only about 1 in
a class of 30 respond that they do so. She maintained that to
prepare students to be citizens, teachers must pair real-life
relevant opportunities with the learning in school. She
mentioned the activities she employs - Kids Voting [USA],
candidate forums, invited speakers - and stated that if she can
pair the process and importance of registering to vote with
those activities, it provides students with an understanding of
how the system works. She said that schools and teachers are
non-partisan, therefore, can offer the amazing aspect of being
in a representative democracy - that each person's voice
matters. She maintained that by having teachers register 16-
year-olds to vote, the teachers can explain all aspects of the
process; the process becomes more relevant; it allows students
to ask questions and be supported, it empowers them to vote and
to continue to vote. She mentioned that youth ages 18-24
represented about 6 percent of the electorate in the last
election.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Ms. Gallaway to describe how
registering students to vote would occur in the schools.
MS. GALLAWAY responded that teachers often have students do
civic projects in class. She mentioned the Youth Ambassadors
Program, in which 16-17-year-olds can volunteer at the polls.
She said that for student engagement in the civic activities,
teachers can offer registering to vote with assistance from
registrars, registration drives, and the League of Women Voters.
In connection to the school activities and what is taught,
students can have a relevant experience and be prepared to vote
at age 18.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged the low voter turnout and
asked for confirmation that early registration would help more
families vote, when the students in the families are voting.
MS. GALLAWAY answered that she has already witnessed that
outcome. As a civics educator, she is constantly teaching about
the elections and requires her students to discuss elections
with parents. She maintained that if students are registering
to vote, the conversations about citizen responsibility are even
further encouraged, and students may pressure their parents to
vote as well.
4:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Ms. Gallaway is limited in
her ability to teach anything about voting and civics without HB
250.
MS. GALLAWAY replied that the limit is in the form of students
feeling a lack of authenticity regarding the school civic
projects they do, because they don't really have a "voice." She
asserted that being able to engage in the legitimate legal
registration process gives authenticity to students and breaks
down the last barrier of disconnect.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concerns about parental
rights issues and giving more responsibility to schools. She
said that if schools take on more responsibility, it will
encourage parents to do less, and parents should be encouraged
to do more to engage their children. She acknowledged the
importance of good civics educators, but expressed that parents
have the responsibility to teach their children and she doesn't
want to see schools take over this area of responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that the proposed legislation
would drive dialogue in classrooms and at home.
[HB 250 was held over.]
4:58:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:58
p.m.