Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/17/2021 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB157 | |
| HB148 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 2021
3:05 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative James Kaufman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain
persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in
support of or in opposition to an application filed for a state
referendum or recall election; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to the Alaska Coordinate System of 2022."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ZULKOSKY
03/03/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/21 (H) TRB, STA
03/30/21 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/21 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
04/01/21 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/01/21 (H) Moved HB 123 Out of Committee
04/01/21 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
04/05/21 (H) TRB RPT 3DP 1NR
04/05/21 (H) DP: FIELDS, TARR, ZULKOSKY
04/05/21 (H) NR: CRONK
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RASMUSSEN
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 2022
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SHAW
03/24/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/21 (H) STA, RES
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 123, as the prime sponsor.
LOGAN BASNER, Staff
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 123 on
behalf of Representative Zulkosky, prime sponsor.
NATASHA SINGH, General Counsel
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Recognition of Alaska Tribes," dated 3/30/21/.
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 157, as the prime sponsor.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 157 on
behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime sponsor.
SCOTT KENDALL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 157.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
157.
REECE WILLIAMS, Staff
Representative Laddie Shaw
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 148 on behalf of
Representative Shaw, prime sponsor.
GWEN GERVELIS, Surveys Manager
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
148.
JAKE MAXWELL, Executive Member
Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
148.
REPRESENTATIVE LADDIE SHAW
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided closing comments during the
hearing on HB 148, as the prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:05:34 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman (via teleconference),
Eastman, and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
Representative Vance arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 123-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
3:07:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act providing for state
recognition of federally recognized tribes; and providing for an
effective date."
3:07:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 123. She noted that the proposed
legislation began as a bipartisan effort in the previous
legislature. It would for the first time, formally recognize
Alaska's Tribes in state law, she said. She explained that
Tribes had been recognized by the federal government, as well as
the executive and judicial branches of Alaska's government;
however, the Alaska State Legislature had yet to officially
recognize them in statute. She cited a memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
which affirmed that passing HB 123 would not substantively
change the state's existing relationship with Tribes and would
serve as a first step towards recognizing their existence and
history in Alaska's legal statutes. Further, as Alaska looked
to its Tribal partners to provide a myriad of essential services
to Alaskans living in remote parts of the state, she emphasized
the importance of healing historic political division. She
reported that in 2017, the State of Alaska entered its first
compact with Tribes by signing the Tribal Child Welfare Compact
to address the significant disproportionate number of Alaska
Native children in state custody. More recently, Tribes and
Tribal nonprofits provided timely, expanded COVID-19
vaccinations well before the state had the ability to do so.
She believed it was difficult for the legislature to have
meaningful discussions about expanding relationships with Tribes
when their existence was not formally acknowledged in the first
place. She recalled testimony from the House Special Committee
on Tribal Affairs (HTRB) that acknowledged the difficulty of
discussing progress without resolving some of the historical
trauma that occurred in Alaska. In closing, she maintained that
the time had long come for Alaska to acknowledge its Tribes and
offer a path towards reconciliation by recognizing Alaska's
first people for the first time in state law.
3:13:24 PM
LOGAN BASNER, Staff, Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Zulkosky, prime
sponsor, provided a sectional analysis of HB 123 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: This section adds legislative finding and
intent language.
Section 2: This section is a technical change and
could have been included in a revisor's bill. In 2016,
provisions from chapter 14 of title 25 of the United
States Code were reorganized. As a result, the
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994
received a different section number in the U.S. Code.
The operative provision of this bill in Section 4 of
the bill references this act. The proposed new statute
in Section 4 cross references AS 23.20.520 and so
Legislative Legal is suggesting that the new section
number in the U.S. Code be updated in this statute.
Sections 3 and 4. Sections 2 and 3 are technical
changes. The proposed new statute of this bill was
deemed to be codified in AS 44.03 by Legislative
Legal. This chapter of title 44 contains only four
statutes that deal with state ownership and
jurisdiction of offshore water and submerged lands and
rules of statutory construction for the chapter.
Because the proposed new statute of this bill is a
completely different concept than the existing
statutes within AS 44.03, clarifying language was
inserted to accommodate the proposed new statute
within this chapter.
Section 5. This section contains the proposed new
statute which acknowledges the unique status tribes
have with the federal government and makes it the
State's official policy that the State recognizes the
federally recognized tribes within the state of
Alaska. The list of federally recognized tribes is
codified in the U.S. Code and this statute references
that act. This section makes clear that this
recognition is in no way intended to affect the
federal trust responsibility the U.S. Government
extends to tribes nor is it an attempt to create a
state trust responsibility to tribes.
Section 6: Adds an immediate effective date.
MR. BASNER emphasized that the proposed legislation would not
create additional rights or privileges for Tribes, nor would it
lead to the creation of casinos. He referenced a letter from
the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) [included in the
committee packet], later adding that the bill would not
interfere with access to natural resources or resource
development.
3:16:56 PM
NATASHA SINGH, General Counsel, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC),
informed committee members that TCC represented 37 federally
recognized Tribes in interior Alaska. She explained that TCC
was a Tribal consortium that assisted Tribes with their federal
relationships. She introduced a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Recognition of Alaska Tribes" [hard copy included in the
committee packet]. She briefly discussed the historical context
of Tribes in Alaska on slide 2 before defining Tribes in further
detail on slide 3, titled "What are Tribes," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Domestic Dependent Nations
• Inherent powers and authorities with self-
governance of internal affairs, e.g. type of
government; tribal membership
• Tribes exercise all powers, unless those powers
have been expressly limited by Congress
• Regulate matters pertaining to tribal members,
e.g. taxes, property, members' conduct
• Immune from lawsuits
• Tribes are not state or local governments;
political subdivisions or agencies or
instrumentalities of the federal or state
governments; tax exempt organizations
3:21:38 PM
MS. SINGH continued to slides 4-5, which reviewed the historical
relationship between Tribes and the United States Government via
federal Indian policy periods. She conveyed that these periods
of federal policy reflected the different approaches that
Congress took to what they termed "the Indian problem." She
explained that the colonial period [1492-1820] established the
initial government-to-government relationship. The
removal/relocation period [1820-1850] gave rise to the Trail of
Tears, as the United States expanded its territory pushing East
Coast Tribes westward. The reservation/treaty period [1850-
1997] saw the development of numerous treaties between Lower-48
Tribes and the federal government; many reservations were also
created. Subsequently, during the allotment and assimilation
period [1887-`1934], the United States rolled back the promises
made in its treaties and the effort to culturally assimilate
Native Americans ensued. The Indian self-government period
[1934-1953] consisted of a paternalistic dynamic wherein the
United States provided services to Tribes with stipulations.
The termination period followed [1953-1960s], which essentially
ended the government-to-government relationship and the
political existence of some Tribes. Lastly, the prior failed
policies culminated in the successful self-determination period
[1960s - present] under President Richard Nixon, which
originated from the concept of local control
3:28:32 PM
MS. SINGH proceeded to slides 6-7 and discussed a set of three
Supreme Court decisions referred to as the Marshal Trilogy,
which affirmed the legal and political standing of Tribes and
established them as domestic dependent nations. She touched on
the Alaska Purchase and the Treaty of Cession on slide 8. Slide
9 emphasized that the relationship between the federal
government and Tribes was constitutionalized in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which also
specified that Congress has the authority to regulate Tribes.
She advanced to slide 10, titled "Self-Determination," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The only policy that has worked to make
significant progress in reversing otherwise
distressed social, cultural, and economic
conditions in Native communities.
• The policy of self-determination reflects a
political equilibrium, which has held for four
decades and which has withstood various shifts in
the party control of Congress and the White
House.
• The first major piece of legislation, Public Law
93-638, the Indian Self Determination Act of
1975.
-Tribes identify federal government services
that they wish to provide to their own tribal
members and contract for the federal funding to
provide those services themselves.
MS. SINGH noted that Tribal recognition and the pursuit of
Tribal self-determination was a bipartisan effort.
Additionally, she explained that the two federal compacts held
by TCC were made possible by the authority in the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act championed by
President Nixon.
3:34:32 PM
MS. SINGH provided an overview of Executive Order 13175 on
slides 11-12. The executive order further recognized the United
States' unique legal relationship with Tribal governments and
established regular consultation and collaboration with Tribes
in the development of federal policies that had Tribal
implications. Slides 13-16 examined the historical relationship
between Tribes and the State of Alaska. She explained that a
large portion of the state's Tribal population was either wiped
out or forced into settlements and boarding schools. There was
also no acknowledgment of Tribes in both the Alaska Constitution
and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) [1971]. She
conveyed that the lack of dialogue between the State of Alaska
and Tribes caused confusion, and in Native Village of Stevens v.
Alaska Management & Planning [1988], the Alaska Supreme Court
indicated that there had never been tribes of Indians in Alaska.
Additionally, a 1991 Alaska administrative order (No. 125)
opposed the expansion of Tribal government powers. She relayed
that in response to the "Sansonetti Opinion" [1993], which
disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's historical analysis of
Tribes in Stevens Village, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)
issued a list of federally recognized tribes in Alaska. One
year later, Congress passed the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe List Act of 1994 that directed BIA [Bureau of Indian
Affairs] to publish lists of recognized Tribes that included
Alaska's. She stated that eventually, case law with a better
understanding of Tribes and their political and legal standing
developed. Slide 16, titled "Current Position of the State of
Alaska on Recognition of Tribes," read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Alaska Supreme Court - "If Congress or the
Executive Branch recognizes a group of Native
Americans as a sovereign Tribe, we 'must do the
same.'" John v. Baker (1999)
• State of Alaska's Executive Branch - "[W]e will
improve government-to-government relations with
Alaska Tribes []." Alaska Admin. Order No. 300
(2018). See also Alaska Department of Law 2017
Opinion - Legal status of tribal governments in
Alaska ("[T]here are no unresolved legal
questions regarding the legal status of Alaska
Tribes as federally recognized tribal
governments.")
3:41:37 PM
MS. SINGH continued to slide 17, titled "HB 123," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Will bring the Alaska State Legislature in-line
with the other two branches of State government
regarding the status of Alaska Tribes.
• Will modernize the policy towards Alaska Native
tribes by officially moving the State legislature
out of the Termination Era and into the Self-
Determination Era.
• Create the potential for the State of Alaska to
lead the country in creation of State-tribal
relations.
MS. SINGH concluded that the 37 federally recognized Tribes of
Interior Alaska favored the proposed legislation. She expressed
excitement for the opportunity to grow the relationship between
state government and Alaska's Tribes and an interest in fixing
existing state issues together.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:43:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN speculated that if Alaska would lead the
country in state and tribal relations with the proposed
legislation, there must be bipartisan [opposition] to this idea.
He asked what was keeping all 50 states from going this route.
MS. SINGH clarified that Alaska was in last place with Tribal
relations, but it had the potential to lead the nation. She
indicated that other states were in various stages of
relationships with Tribes: some had entered into sophisticated
compact agreements that addressed criminal justice, child
protection, and education, while others acknowledged Tribes that
were not even federally recognized. She reiterated that the
mere recognition of Alaska's Tribes would allow the state to
lead the nation and could move Alaska out of last place.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY noted that there were roughly 12 states
that had recognized Tribes through legislation. She offered to
provide that information to the Chair's office for distribution.
She pointed out that of the 571 federally recognized Tribes in
the country, 229 subsisted in Alaska; therefore, Alaska had the
potential to be a leader for improved state and Tribal
relations. She opined that with so many Tribes in Alaska, it
was unfortunate that the state had yet to acknowledge Tribes in
state law.
3:46:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, referring to the bill language, inquired
about the change in federal citation on Page 2, line 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Section 3 looked as if it
would restrict applicability to a smaller portion of statute as
opposed to the entire chapter. He asked why that change was
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:49:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify the meaning of self-
determination versus a domestic dependent [nation].
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY returned to slide 6, titled "Domestic
Dependent Nations," which read:
a weaker power does not surrender its independence -
its right to elf-government - by associating with a
stronger, and takings its protection. A weak state,
in order to provide for its safety, may place itself
under the protection of one more powerful, without
stripping itself of the right of government, and
ceasing to be a state.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY indicated that the slide captured the
issue of inherent sovereignty that was often discussed in
association to the relationships that Tribes have with federal
or state government. She expounded that while Tribes may have
aligned themselves with stronger governments, there was also an
opportunity for the federal government, through self-
determination policy, to allow them to make decisions for
themselves. She suggested considering Tribes as the most local
form of government, adding that the term "Tribal sovereignty"
should not be a scary word. She pointed out that it was the
"domestic dependent nations" framework with which Tribes
exercised their self-determination. She considered the example
of Tribal health, explaining that the federal compacts allowed
Tribes to offer healthcare in the stead of the federal
government; however, she noted that the federal government also
seeded decision making authority to Tribes to allow them to
create culturally relevant, locally appropriate programs that
worked best in their communities. She believed self-
determination was a policy framework that provided decision
making authority to domestic dependent nations that had aligned
with the federal government.
3:53:13 PM
MS. SINGH agreed with Representative Zuloksky, adding that
"domestic dependent nation status" was a legal status
established in the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decision. The
case outlined the sovereign nature of Tribes as unlike states
and quasi-sovereign. Alternatively, she said self-determination
was a policy, which implemented the legal status of domestic
dependent nations.
3:54:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE claimed that there was an underlying fear
of Tribes becoming legally recognized by the state and pondered
"what lies at the heart of that fear?" She asked where the
state fit in the relationship between governments and whether
the bill sponsor had addressed some of the "unknown fears."
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY in response to a previous question from
Chair Kreiss-Tomkins regarding the language in Section 2,
clarified that the reference change was a technical change.
Similarly, in response to a previous question from
Representative Eastman, she said the change in Section 3 was
also a technical change and directed attention to the sectional
analysis [included in the committee packet] for further
explanation. Returning to Representative Vance's questions, she
declined to speculate on the actions of future legislators with
respect to their opinions on Tribes in Alaska. She stated that
the beauty of HB 123 was that it would provide an opportunity in
2021, as the country was experiencing significant divisiveness
and challenges with cultural relationships, for the existing
legislature to pass straightforward [legislation] that would
establish state policy acknowledging federally recognized Tribes
in Alaska for the first time since statehood. She believed that
simple recognition would go a long way towards healing
historical and political divisions. She continued by reporting
that Alaska led the country in the number of times a state
government had sued Tribes in its attempt to diminish their
authority; further, [Alaska's] Tribes had not seen great
reparation for the colonial and extermination periods. She
opined that the bill was long overdue.
4:00:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS [announced that HB 123 was held over].
HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
4:00:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act requiring the disclosure of
the identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities
that expend money in support of or in opposition to an
application filed for a state referendum or recall election; and
providing for an effective date."
4:01:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 157. She conveyed that the proposed
legislation would move the statutory boundary for disclosing
certain contributions and expenditures from those made to
influence a referendum or recall election to an earlier point in
the statutory process. It would require the reporting of
certain campaign finance activity prior to the collection of
signatures, she said. This would align both the
recall/referendum reporting requirements with reporting
requirements for ballot initiatives. She noted that an article
from the Alaska political blog, "the Alaska Landmine,alerted
her to the issue. She concluded that Alaskans deserved to know
who was funding any referendum or recall election. She pointed
out that financial contributions were a significant part of
relaying a campaign message or successfully collecting
signatures. She said she hoped the bill would make the process
more transparent. Further, she believed that aligning
[reporting] requirements would create less confusion for those
working on recall/referendums or ballot initiatives.
4:03:13 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 157 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sections 1: AS 15.13.010(b) Applicability related to
State Election Campaigns. Adds language related to
initiative proposal, referendum, and recall
applications.
Sections 2: AS 15.13.050(a) Registration before
expenditure. Adds language related to referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 3: AS 15.13.065(c) Contributions. Adds
language related to referendum and recall
applications.
Sections 4: AS 15.13.110(e) Filing of Reports.
Rewrites the language related to those receiving or
making expenditures to support or oppose referendums.
This language is identical to the language contained
in AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 5: AS 15.13.110 Filing of Reports. Adds a
new subsection (k) for those receiving or making
expenditures to support or oppose a recall. This
language is identical to Section 4 of this bill and AS
15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 6: AS 15.13.400(4) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "contributions" to include groups
and referendum and recall applications.
Sections 7: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "expenditures" to include referendum
and recall applications.
Sections 8: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "group" to include referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 9: Uncodified law. States that this Act
applies only to referendums or recalls that are filed
on or after the effective date of this Act.
Sections 10: Provides for a January 1, 2022 effective
date.
4:06:19 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the current campaign [to recall
the governor] had been "front and center." He said he was
always struck by the gaping loophole in the laws and believed
that fixing [that loophole] would make sense for all parties.
4:06:53 PM
SCOTT KENDALL, informed committee members that he worked as an
attorney in Anchorage but was testifying in a personal capacity.
He pointed out that there were people on both sides of a current
effort [to recall Governor Mike Dunleavy]; nonetheless, the
proposed legislation would treat both sides equally. He
emphasized that regardless of the political affiliation, [HB
157] would keep everyone honest. He conceded that he might seem
like an odd advocate for the bill. He disclosed that he was one
of the authors of Governor Dunleavy's recall and one of the
attorneys who successfully challenged the denial of that recall;
additionally, he said he had personally donated funds to the
recall campaign. He noted that he was also one of the authors
of Alaska Ballot Measure 2 in 2020 [Top-Four Ranked-Choice
Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative] that promoted
election transparency. He conveyed that he found it evident
from his experience as a campaign and elections attorney that
the current void in the law harmed the public overall by
shielding political activities from disclosure, which led to
needless controversy and speculation. He stated that Alaskans
had a right to transparency. He opined that all organizations
supporting or opposing Governor Dunleavy's recall campaign were
complying with current law; however, the law lacked disclosure
requirements. He acknowledged the public attention regarding
the lack of financial transparency from the "Recall Dunleavy"
movement and drew attention to an equally troubling detail,
explaining that when a public official was under recall, that
public official could solicit unlimited donations from virtually
any source without disclosure. He characterized the loophole in
the law with respect to the finances of recall elections and
referendums as "incredibly harmful," adding that it undermined
the public's faith in elections. He said regardless of the
individuals who may be involved in a future recall, his opinion
was that the status quo was untenable. He said [the loophole]
was a "massive blind spot" for the public; further, that it
created an unacceptably high risk of potential corruption and
undue influence on sitting elected officials. For those
reasons, he urged [committee members'] to support the proposed
legislation.
4:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the bill sponsor and agreed that
there seemed to be a gap in the law. She asked whether
requiring disclosures from referendums and recall initiatives
was a common practice in other states.
MS. KOENEMAN offered to follow up with information on the
requirements in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why the proposed legislation did not
have an immediate effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN opined that changing the reporting
requirements in the middle of an effort to recall the governor
could create a political environment in which the bill may not
advance. She noted that she would not be opposed to any current
recall campaign sharing its financial information by choice.
She emphasized her desire for a clean transition and shared her
hope that current recalls would not be impacted by this, as that
could create a barrier for the proposed legislation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that any changes in commercial
fishing regulations were scheduled for the "nadir" of the
offseason, indicating that this could be similar.
4:13:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned why the bill excluded municipal
referendums.
MS. KOENEMAN pointed out that there were many different
reporting requirements for municipalities, noting that the
proposed legislation focused on state elections. Nonetheless,
she offered to look into the municipal code.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN added that she was open to considering
how the addition of municipal or borough requirements for local
recalls would impact the bill.
4:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how long Alaskan have had the right
to recall their public officials.
MS. KOENEMAN deferred the question to Ms. Hebdon.
4:15:25 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, said she was unsure.
MS. KOENEMAN believed the requested information was in the
Alaska Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many recall efforts had been
successful.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN share her understanding that there had
never been a successful recall campaign at the state level.
Nonetheless, she believed that with the increased occurrence of
recall efforts during elections, financial reporting
requirements should be as transparent as possible.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred that there had been very few, if
any, successful recall elections in state history. As a
supporter of the bill, he expressed concern that recall
campaigns were not required to disclose their financials, which
he characterized as a "black box of a campaign apparatus"
regardless of whether the recall came to fruition. He pointed
out that all the money was unaccounted for and being used for
political communication. He reiterated that even if the recalls
never resulted in an election, there was still a massive
transparency problem, which the proposed legislation would
solve.
4:18:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that there had never been a
successful recall effort. He expressed concern that if the
hurdles to successfully recalling an elected official were such
that it had never been accomplished, it could appear
[controversial] if legislators were to add to the administrative
and regulatory burden.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN maintained that the proposed
legislation would provide the public with a transparent
procedure for financial contributions. She said the recall
process itself could be considered in a different bill, but the
proposed legislation before the committee was solely about
financial reporting requirements. She believed that the public
had the right to know who funded the organizations both
supporting and opposing a recall referendum. She pointed out
that the same rules applied to ballot initiatives. She stressed
the importance of providing a greater level of transparency.
4:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked at what point would the right to
recall be effectually regulated out of existence. He questioned
whether there were too many regulations and whether "the
financial expense were too high to exercise this right."
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that the bill did not pertain
to that. She acknowledged that an elected official had never
been successfully recalled; however, under the current reporting
requirements, there were many unanswered questions about the
funding on either side, she said. She asserted that it was not
her intention to change the outcome of a recall election with
the proposed legislation. She added that her goal was to ensure
that Alaskans knew who was behind the funding, which was not
possible under current law.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that many elected officials who
were subject to a recall campaign might have resigned before
suffering the public shame of being evicted from office, which
could be a reason for the lack of "positive proof points." That
said, he believed that was a distinct and separate issue from
the question of financial transparency. He added that if
Representative Eastman wished to pursue legislation that
revisited the thresholds for recalling an elected official, it
would be guaranteed a hearing in this committee.
4:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how the recall process would be
altered if this bill were to pass.
MS. HEBDON stated that the major change would be the time of
reporting. Currently, reporting was not required during the
signature gathering phase, she said. She remarked:
Generally, because of the definitions of contribution
and expenditure - because it does not currently
include money raised and spent in support or
opposition to a recall or referendum during that
signature gathering phase, it's not reportable
activity. It's only reportable once it makes the
ballot and becomes a ballot question. So, in essence,
it would be a timing thing - they would be reporting
money in and money out as soon as they began the
signature gathering phase.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for verification that the bill did
not include additional [requirements]; however, it would
implement an earlier timeframe for reporting.
MS. HEBDON confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were fees associated
with an earlier reporting timeframe.
MS. HEBDON replied that there were no fees associated with APOC
reporting. She added that she was unfamiliar with the Division
of Elections and whether there would be fee associated with
filing an application for recall or referendum.
MS. KOENEMAN, per the Division of Elections, reported that
referendums and initiatives required a deposit of $100 upon the
initial filing, which would not change if this bill were to
pass.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his belief that legislators, as
candidates, should hold themselves to the same standards that
they expect of others, indicating that the legislature often
espoused user fee mechanisms to other groups in Alaska despite
APOC itself lacking a user fee mechanism.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the timeline for that
initial deposit of $100 [to the Division of Elections] and how
that differed from the reporting timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN understood that the $100 fee was
deposited with the initial application. She explained that the
proposed legislation would only change the timeline for
reporting financial contributions, such that it would coincide
with signature gathering.
4:28:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what steps were involved in the
collection of signatures and whether there were associated fees.
4:28:27 PM
MS. KOENEMAN relayed that for recall petitions, the application
could not be submitted within the first 120 days of the term of
office. After 120 days, the application, which included a name,
office, and three sponsors to serve as the recall committee, was
filed with the Division of Elections. Further, she said that 10
percent of individuals who voted in the preceding general
election of the official sought to be recalled were required,
100 of whom would serve as sponsors. Afterwards, the division
director certified the recall or notified the recall committee
on grounds for refusal. Once certified, the director prepared
the petition booklets for circulation throughout the state or
House/Senate district. She added that recall campaigns were
allowed 180 days to gather the signatures of qualified voters.
After the signatures were collected, the division verified the
signers of the petition booklets and upon review, notified them
of proper or improper filing within 30 days. At that point,
under current law, the APOC reporting would initiate with the
following requirements: "the first report shall report the
contribution or contributions on a form prescribed by the
commission no later than 30 days after the contribution that
requires them to report is made." She offered to submit the
aforementioned information to the chair for distribution.
4:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that additional resources be
provided for recalls and referendums, as regulations on those
efforts were increasing. Further, he characterized [recalls] as
an "unfair fight."
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that it was unfair to
represent the proposed legislation as intending to "increase
regulations." She clarified that the bill would provide more
transparency by changing the timeline for existing regulations.
4:33:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 157 was held over.
4:34:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 148-ALASKA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 2022
4:35:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Coordinate System of 2022."
4:35:52 PM
REECE WILLIAMS, Staff, Representative Laddie Shaw, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 148 on behalf of Representative Shaw,
prime sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
HB 148 House Bill 148 revises Alaska Statute chapter
38.20, known as the Alaska Coordinate System, to
reflect changes in the federal datum used as a base
for the coordinate system and to allow for future
updates.
The system is comprised of rectangular plane
coordinates used to define accurate positions or
locations of points on the surface of the earth.
Currently, forty-eight states have adopted state plane
coordinate systems into their statutes. This bill
revises the Alaska Coordination System as an ongoing
modernization of the U.S National Spatial Reference
System to reduce the distortions present in the
current system. In addition to improved zone
locations, that will cover population and resources
areas, a new statewide zone will be created for
Alaska. This will reduce the distortion of the
projection currently in use and improve the display of
statewide geographic data.
This is an important and practical step for Alaska to
adapt to this coordination system. Alaska will have
the advantage of improvements in the geodetic
positioning, and with the new gravity-based elevation.
This will dramatically improve the ability to measure
elevations in Alaska. This modernization effort will
benefit scientists, surveyors, design professionals,
GIS specialists, and the geospatial community. The
improved coordinate system minimizes linear
distortions and is designed to include population
centers and resource development.
I encourage your support in the passage of HB 148 as
it is critical to Alaska maintaining accuracy to
surveying and mapping.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that most members were familiar with
the legislation, as an identical bill was heard by the committee
last session. After ascertaining that the full bill
introduction was not necessary, he invited committee questions.
4:38:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how often the statute [AS 38.20]
required revision.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that the statute was only revised when
there was enough new federal datum acquired to justify an
update. He noted that the last update was in 1988.
4:39:12 PM
GWEN GERVELIS, Surveys Manager, Division of Mining Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), confirmed that the
last vertical datum update occurred in 1988; 1983 was the last
horizontal datum update. She noted that the proposed
legislation would provide a major revision and a much better
model for the earth. She added that new datums were not
expected for another 50 of 60 years.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commended the efficient data compilation.
4:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be harmful if this
bill did not pass.
MR. WILLIAMS explained that if the proposed legislation did not
pass, Alaska would be severely lacking in its ability to survey
and map, which would have a fiscal impact.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed Representative Eastman's question
to Mr. Maxwell.
4:41:16 PM
JAKE MAXWELL, Executive Member, Alaska Society of Professional
Land Surveyors, asked Representative Eastman to repeat the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Maxwell to quantify the public
impact if the proposed legislation did not pass.
MR. MAXWELL conveyed that the bill was necessary because private
and public industries could not support the new system unless it
was codified. He added that every state was expected to adopt
similar legislation. He concluded that updating the Alaska
Coordinate System would be beneficial to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify whether failing to
update the statute would financially impact Alaskans or result
in less accurate data. He asked for a more "tangible"
explanation of the effects of not passing the proposed
legislation.
MR. WILLIAMS said if the bill did not pass, Alaska would lack
the advantage of increased consistency in its surveying and
would not be able to use the updated technology.
MR. MAXWELL explained that the legislation would help develop a
modern and more functional statewide coordinate system for
mapping. He reported that the vastly improved 2022 system used
space and gravity measurements and would enhance the coordinate
system model.
4:45:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS gathered that there would be no changes to
pricing if the bill were to pass. He concluded that the only
impact would be to surveys, as their accuracy would be improved.
He asked if that was correct.
MR. WILLIAMS answered yes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to identify the real-world
implications of passing the bill. He asked whether surveyors
would have to buy new equipment because their old equipment
would be tethered to the old datum system.
MR. MAXWELL stated that surveyors would not need to buy new
equipment.
4:46:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill sponsor would
object to labeling the coordinate system as "2021" [rather than
2022] if the governor and the Senate had indicated that they
were strongly supportive of passing this legislation [in 2021].
MR. WILLIAMS believed the number corresponded with the federal
datum. He indicated his desire to stay consistent with the
federal government.
MS. GERVELIS verified that "2022" was NOAA NGS's [National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geodetic
Survey's] new designation for the datum.
4:48:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LADDIE SHAW, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 148, reiterated that the proposed legislation
would bring [the Alaska Coordinate System] into the twenty-first
century by defining accurate positions and locations.
4:49:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS [announced that HB 148 was held over.]
4:49:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS provided closing remarks and reviewed the
upcoming schedule.
4:49:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:49
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB157 Hearing Request 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Letter of Support - Kendall 4.2.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Sectional Analysis 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Sponsor Statement 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Additional Info - Press Release 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Legislative Legal Memo 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letter of Support - O’Domin 4.13.12.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 PowerPoint Presentation - Anderson-Singh 3.30.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Additional Info - AOGA Response Letter 3.26.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Legal Memo re State Recognitin of Tribes 3.25.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 148 Sectional Analysis - 4.6.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sponsor Statement - 4.6.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Additional Info - APDC Position Statement_Final_R2.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Fiscal Note - 4.12.2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Hearing Request Memo - 4.6.2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Letter of Support - ASPLS 4.8.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |