01/28/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR19 | |
| SB129 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 2022
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative James Kaufman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit.
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3(JUD)
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and experts;
relating to the powers and duties of the office of public
advocacy; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Court
System; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 19
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
01/18/22 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) JUD, FIN
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 129
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) JUD, STA
05/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 5AM
03/08/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/08/21 (H) NR: TARR
03/08/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, VANCE,
KAUFMAN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
03/17/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2AM
03/20/21 (H) DP: VANCE, DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS,
SNYDER, CLAMAN
03/20/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN, KURKA
04/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 3(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/26/21 (S) MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLICATION NOTICE,
RULE 23 FAILED Y12 N7 E1
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/06/21 (S) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
05/06/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR 1AM
05/07/21 (S) NR: SHOWER
05/07/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, COSTELLO
05/07/21 (S) AM: REINBOLD
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff
Senator Robert Myers
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 19 on behalf of the sponsor.
THERESA WOLSTAD, Staff
Senator Robert Myers
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 129 on behalf of the sponsor.
DAVID IGNELL, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Alaska Natives are
underrepresented in the judicial branch during the hearing on SB
129.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
129.
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
129.
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 3.
ERICK CORDERO, Staff
Representative Delena Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis on HB 3 on
behalf of the sponsor.
PAULA VRANA, Commissioner Designee
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3 on behalf of the administration.
BRYAN FISHER, Director
Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3.
CHRIS LETTERMAN
Chief Information Security Officer
Office of Information Technology
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3.
PETER HOUSE, IT Security Expert
Deeptree, Inc.
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3.
ERIK WYATT, IT Director
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:45 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Myers, Hughes, Shower, and Chair
Holland.
CHAIR HOLLAND recognized Representative Kaufman was in the
audience.
SJR 19-CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
1:31:36 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 19, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation limit.
1:32:09 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as the sponsor, stated that the
committee heard Senate Joint Resolution 301 during the third
special session. He noted that SJR 19 incorporated the identical
language from that resolution.
1:32:26 PM
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, stated
that as SJR 19 is identical to the language in committee
substitute (CS) Senate Joint Resolution 301 (JUD) that passed
out of committee in the third special session.
MS. ANDERSON summarized SJR 19. This appropriation limit would
effectively be 14 percent of the five-year rolling average of
the personal income of Alaskan private employees. The income of
state and local government employees would not contribute to the
calculation, nor would the limit include permanent fund dividend
income.
MS. ANDERSON stated the exceptions to the limit:
Exceptions to the limit would include appropriations
for payment of permanent fund dividends,
appropriations to the Alaska Permanent Fund,
appropriations from federal funds, appropriations from
other nonstate sources and trusts such as corporate
receipts, appropriations to oblige a disaster
declaration, appropriations to pay off revenue bonds,
appropriations to state accounts or funds that have
subsequent appropriations from the accounts, such as
the constitutional or statutory budget reserve
accounts, and general obligation bonds. The limit
could be exceeded to fund capital projects with a 2/3
vote of each body.
1:33:54 PM
MS. ANDERSON explained that the spending cap would need to pass
by constitutional amendment standards in both bodies and
subsequently require voter approval. If approved by the voters,
the legislature could approve the spending cap by a simple
majority vote of the legislature. However, the spending limit
could never exceed 14 percent.
MS. ANDERSON stated that the purpose of the spending limit is
not to ratchet down current spending but rather to create a
meaningful spending cap when the state has additional revenue,
such as oil revenue. It would smooth out future spending to
prevent overspending and save those excess funds for a rainy
day. It would also smooth out capital budget expenditures and
prevent spikes for infrastructure maintenance when the state may
not have the funds to do so. SJR 19 would also help create
predictability for the construction industry.
MS. ANDERSON noted that Alexei Painter was online to answer any
technical questions.
1:34:49 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated his intention to set aside SJR 19 until
next week after committee discussions.
1:35:03 PM
SENATOR SHOWER noted that three Fiscal Policy Working Group
(FPWG) members also serve on this committee. He asked him to
compare the proposed constitutional spending limit in SJR 19 to
the Fiscal Policy Working Group's recommendations for a spending
cap.
1:36:04 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he did not have the FPWG report in front of
him. Still, he recalled that the report recommended the state
institute a reasonable spending cap without specifying details.
He stated that Representative Kaufman suggested the original
concept. He expressed his preference for SJR 19's approach for a
spending cap because it would not immediately put pressure on
the state's budget. He noted the legislature has appropriating
authority for the budget. The point of the cap is to avoid a
run-up in future spending. He said if the state experienced
another boom similar to the one from 2006 to 2014, it would
force the state to save more revenue and constrain spending to
diminish issues when the boom is over. He highlighted that the
state's economy has been based on oil revenue historically.
Since that industry tends to be boom or bust, it has resulted in
boom or bust state spending, with the bust portion challenging
to navigate.
1:37:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS explained that the state's constitutional
appropriation limit or spending cap was initially based on Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). He stated that this proposal uses
personal income tied directly to the state's economy. He
predicted the state will face a dilemma because a substantial
amount of the state's budget would be based on Alaska Permanent
Fund income. However, the state no longer has a direct tie to
the states' economy. Other states' tax revenue provides links to
their economies. If these states suffer a downturn, their tax
revenue diminishes. This provides these states with an incentive
to ensure that their economies do well. As Alaska becomes more
removed from any ties to its economy, the state's spending
correlates more with what is happening in the stock market. He
and Representative Kaufman wanted to ensure that Alaska has
incentives to ensure that state government finances are doing
well and that Alaskans prosper.
1:38:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS explained that under SJR 19, if the state's
economy does not grow, it will limit state government spending.
As the state's economy grows, the state can grow with it. As
Alaska's economy grows, especially during resource booms, the
state could add state services such as more police and schools
needed because of population growth. Thus, the tie between
personal income and the state's economy is necessary.
1:39:49 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked how closely he had followed the Fiscal
Policy Work Group (FPWG). He offered to talk offline with the
sponsor to tie the structure in SJR 19 to the FPWG's
recommendations.
1:41:03 PM
SENATOR HUGHES acknowledged that the FPWG's recommendations
included adopting a meaningful spending cap. She said that
"meaningful" meant that the spending cap would need to endure
over time. She appreciated that this proposal was a
constitutional amendment rather than a statutory change. She
noted some colleagues were leaning towards a statutory fix. She
expressed concern that allowing the legislature to change the
percentage may conflict with the Alaska Constitution's express
authority for legislative appropriation. She asked whether the
sponsor consulted with Legislative Legal Services or the
Department of Law on whether the legislature would need to
adhere to the 14 percent if SJR 19 were to pass, and that it
could not veer away from it.
SENATOR MYERS said the committee addressed that issue last fall
in Senate Joint Resolution 301. The committee passed an
amendment to ensure that the legislature could adjust the
percentage under two conditions. First, it would need to pass a
bill that is not an appropriation bill. This would prevent the
legislature from overriding the spending limit by passing the
budget. Second, the current 14 percent in SJR 14 creates an
upper limit. The legislature could ratchet it down, but it could
never exceed the 14 percent limit.
1:43:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked how he arrived at the 14 percent limit.
1:43:52 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to a PowerPoint, slide 2, Proposed
Constitutional Appropriation Limits Based on State Private
Personal Income. He explained that Representative Kaufman
originally suggested tying the 14 percent limit to the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). He offered his view that using 14
percent gave the state a fair amount of headroom. However, the
vast majority of the headroom disappeared when SJR 19 was based
on personal income. Although the spending limit was tighter than
initially planned, it is still above last year's spending and
this year's proposed spending.
1:44:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that he compromised on the spending cap
during the FPWG deliberations when the committee changed the
proposed state spending limit in the third special session when
discussing Senate Joint Resolution 301. He characterized the
amendments adopted in that legislation as putting the state in a
"not debilitating" position. That language was incorporated into
SJR 19. He recalled the overall effect would give the
legislature an estimated "headroom" of $600,000 to $700,000. He
asked if that was correct.
1:46:19 PM
SENATOR MYERS responded that it sounded right, but he offered to
double-check the figures.
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that the committee tweak it a little
since the spending cap could never exceed the 14 percent upper
limit.
1:46:47 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SJR 19 in committee.
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
1:47:07 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
129, "An Act relating to information on judicial officers
provided in election pamphlets."
[The committee previously heard SB 129 on 5/5/21.]
1:47:27 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as the sponsor, stated that the
committee heard SB 129 last year. He asked his staff to present
the bill.
1:47:51 PM
THERESA WOLSTAD, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, stated
that based on input from the initial hearing and working with
the Alaska Judicial Council, the sponsor developed a committee
substitute (CS) for SB 129, Version O, [not yet before the
committee as a working document].
1:48:38 PM
MS. WOLSTAD refreshed the committees recall of SB 129,
paraphrasing the sponsor statement. It read as follows:
[Original punctuation provided]:
The framers of the Alaska Constitution established a
three-part judicial merit selection retention system.
Version O focuses on the third phase of that system.
The Judicial Council conducts extensive performance
evaluations, interviews, public hearings, and surveys
to assess judicial integrity, diligence, impartiality,
legal ability, and administrative skills. Given the
wealth of public information collected by the Judicial
Council, it is the goal of this proposed legislation
to increase the information readily available to the
public to foster informed and knowledgeable voters in
terms of judicial retention elections.
The judicial retention election provides the
electorate critical information to make informed
decisions regarding judicial retention. This will
provide accountability of judicial officers as well as
strength public trust.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked Ms. Wolstad to explain the changes from the
original language in Version B of SB 129 to Version O, [not yet
before the committee].
1:49:59 PM
MS. WOLSTAD paraphrased the changes from SB 129 Version B to
Version O.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1 Adds a new section to AS 15.58.030(g).
Material filed by a candidate for election pamphlet.
New section broadens information that may be filed by
a person seeking retention in office as a justice or
judge. Clarifies information that may be filed by a
person seeking retention in office as a justice or
judge and establishes a 300-word limit.
• Adds information regarding residency of the
justice or judge.
• Adds information regarding military service of
the justice or judge.
• Adds information regarding professional
activities of the justice or judge, including
public outreach and administrative activities.
• Adds any additional information that the justice
or judge would like to publish to support the
justice or judge's candidacy.
1:50:56 PM
Section 2: AS 15.58.050. Information and
recommendations on judicial officers.
Section is amended to distinguishes information
requirements for justices and judges that are subject
to retention election for the first time and
individuals seeking continued retention.
Information requirements for judges seeking continued
retention.
• Added information requirements.
• (A) Statement describing the professional philosophy
not exceeding 150 words.
• (E) Rating of justice or judge by law enforcement
officers, attorneys, court employees, jurors.
• (F) Number of decisions that were appealed and the
rate at which the decisions of the justice or judge
were affirmed."
• (G) a description of any public disciplinary
proceedings against the justice or judge.
• (H) Self-assessment evaluating the individual's
judicial performance, not to exceed 250 words.
1:51:53 PM
MS. WOLSTAD continued to paraphrase the changes from SB 129 to
Version O.
• Amended information requirements include:
• Amend (A), "law school from which the justice or judge
graduated" to (B) "a description of the judicial,
legal, or other education."
• Amend (B), "primary practices areas of the justice or
judge before appointment" to (C) "description of
professional business experience and positions in the
preceding 10 years."
• Amend (G) "organizations in which the justice or judge
is a current member" to (D) "a list of service
organization with which the justice or judge is
affiliated."
• Removed information requirements included pro bono work.
• Remove (D), pro bono work has been removed for
justices or judges.
1:52:50 PM
• Information requirements for justices seeking continued
retention.
• Information required includes material described for a
judge that is subject to a retention election except
the number of decisions that were appealed and the
rate at which the decisions that were affirmed.
• Information requirements for justice or judge standing for
retention for the first time.
• Amended and merged (E) "elected offices held by the
justice or judge" and (F) "political party offices
held by justices or judge" to (A) "previous political
and governmental positions held, including any
political office held."
• Amends (B) "the primary practice areas of the justice
or judge before appointment, including the percentage
of the justice's or judge's pre-appointment career
spent as a trial lawyer" to (B) "the justice's or
judge's primary practice areas before appointment,
including the approximate percentage of the justice's
or judge's pre-appointment career spent as a trial
lawyer."
• Amend (H) "clients and employers of members of the
justices' or judge's household" to "types of clients
the justice or judge represented before appointment"
MS. WOLSTAD observed that there was a significant difference
between the original of SB 129 and Version O.
1:54:46 PM
At ease
1:55:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and opened public testimony
on SB 129.
1:55:58 PM
DAVID IGNELL, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated that he
started the website "Powered by Justice." He offered his view
that Alaska Natives are underrepresented in Alaska's
administrative and judicial branches. In the past 18 months, he
has tried to get the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) to expand the
scope of judicial evaluations for the same reasons the committee
mentioned. The AJC currently solicits responses to their survey
from police officers and social services workers. He recommended
that the AJC survey the 230 federally-recognized tribes and
publish their responses on judges, but the council declined. It
troubles him that Alaska Natives represent 40 percent of the
prison population. The AJC heard testimony in November 2020 from
an Alaskan Native woman who testified that she would like to see
more people who look like her when she walks into a courtroom.
The council did not address her concern. When he is in Hoonah,
where he owns a home, he hears the resentment from residents. In
closing, he said he would like Alaska Native voices to be heard.
1:59:28 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND found no one else wished to testify, and closed
public testimony on SB 129.
2:00:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked why the bill title no longer contained the
language "election pamphlet." She wondered if Legislative Legal
Services was online to respond.
[Legislative Legal services was not online.]
2:00:27 PM
SENATOR MYERS answered he was unsure why Legislative Legal
drafters removed that language. He stated that the bill
addresses the judicial retention elections and additional
biographical information that should be included in the election
pamphlet.
SENATOR HUGHES surmised that the phrase wasnt needed because
Sections 1 and 2 related to judicial candidate information were
tied to the requirements for the election pamphlet. She asked if
that was an accurate statement.
2:01:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS agreed that was effectively the case. The statute
generally addresses information in the election pamphlet. It
covers legislative candidates, ballot initiatives, and judges
seeking judicial retention. Section 1 would codify what the
Division of Election already asks judges. Since the language
reads "may" and not "shall," judicial candidates do not have to
submit photographs or a short biographical statement for the
election pamphlet. Section 2 relates to the Alaska Judicial
Council's (AJC) information provided to the Division of
Elections. SB 129 would require information from the AJC.
2:03:17 PM
SENATOR SHOWER commented that the Alaska Constitutional
Convention consisted of 55 delegates: 49 men and six women, with
one Alaska Native. He stated that underrepresentation of Alaska
Native is also present in the Village Police Safety Officer
program (VPSO). He spoke in support of having more Alaska Native
representation in Alaska. He viewed the bill's focus on the
judicial branch as an effort to provide a better balance.
2:05:36 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referenced Section 2 and asked why the bill
limits biographical information on judges to 10 rather than 20
years.
2:05:53 PM
SENATOR MYERS answered that the original draft of the bill did
not have a time limit. After holding discussions with the AJC
and the Alaska Court System, it seemed that after a judge served
in office for a significant time, their law school or work
experience did not appear relevant. The point was to give voters
relevant information, so it did not seem to matter what happened
30 years ago.
2:07:21 PM
At ease
2:08:18 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:08:21 PM
SENATOR HUGHES expressed concern that the biographical
information and work experience section would be left blank for
those judges with lengthy service. It may give the impression
that these judges had no professional service.
2:09:14 PM
SENATOR SHOWER made a motion to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for SB 129, work order 32-LS0751\O, as the working
document.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and Version O was adopted.
CHAIR HOLLAND turned to invited testimony.
2:10:28 PM
At ease
2:10:43 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:11:02 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the Alaska Court System or the Division
of Elections could state their position on the bill.
2:11:45 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, via Teams, stated that
the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) does not have a position on SB
129.
2:12:08 PM
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, Division
of Elections, Anchorage, Alaska, via teleconference, responded
that the Division of Elections does not have a position on SB
129. The division would continue to implement the statutes
related to publishing the election pamphlet.
2:12:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the election pamphlet would have a
category heading left blank if judges with 15 years of service
did not list their biographical experience on their application.
She pointed out that legislative candidates could decide to skip
a question. She recalled that the question would appear in the
election pamphlet as a category, but it would be left blank. If
so, the voter may think the judicial candidate lacked work
experience.
MS. THOMPSON answered that the heading would not appear if the
judicial candidate did not answer a question, in part, as a
space-saving measure the division uses since the election
pamphlet is lengthy.
2:13:49 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if headings for legislative candidates were
included and left blank.
MS. THOMPSON answered no. She stated that some candidates do not
follow the election pamphlet format but submit a biographical
statement instead. In those instances, the division would
publish the candidates' statements.
2:14:30 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 129 in committee.
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
2:14:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.
3(JUD) "An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
2:15:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELANA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, speaking as sponsor, stated that HB 3 would add cyber
attacks to the Alaska Disaster Act. She said Alaska's disaster
statutes are vague and need updating. She stated that
cyberattacks are increasing; the state has had several attacks
in the past year. She noted that under the bill, a declaration
must meet two tests to be considered a disaster. First, the
incident must be widespread and must cause damage. Second, each
incident must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Last year, a
cyber attack disrupted services at the Alaska Court System for
several weeks. In addition, a cyber attack disrupted services at
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) for a
significant time in 2021. The state still does not know the
extent of the monetary damage or quantify other effects from the
cyber attack. Further, a cyber attack shut down the Mat-Su
Borough (MSB), disrupting critical services and causing damages
exceeding $25 million. The City of Valdez experienced a
ransomware attack requiring substantial payments to regain
access to their systems. She related a more significant cyber
attack that occurred in Florida in 2020. Cyber attackers gained
access to the industrial controls of a water treatment facility
and attempted to increase the levels of toxic chemicals in the
water system. Although the authorities contained the attack, it
raises concerns about what could happen if critical
infrastructure disrupts critical services.
2:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE D. JOHNSON said adding "cyber attacks" to the
definition of disaster would clarify the seriousness of the
problem and allow access to resources.
2:17:55 PM
ERICK CORDERO, Staff, Representative Delena Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor,
said the intent of HB 3 was to update Alaska's statutes. He
stated that many states have updated or are in the process of
updating their disaster laws related to cyber attacks.
2:18:18 PM
MR. CORDERO said the bill consists of one section. Page 1, line
4, provides the current definition for a disaster, which read:
(2) "disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat
of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life
or property, or shortage of food, water, or fuel
resulting from ....
MR. CORDERO stated that categories were listed beginning on page
1, line 7 of HB 3, including natural disasters, environmental
dangers, equipment failures, and terrorist attacks. The
definition does not list cyber attacks. In 2000, the statute
included "man-made" disasters, but that language was removed.
The Mat-Su Borough and other political subdivisions requested a
definition for a disaster declaration. He explained that
declaring a disaster could result in the state or communities
achieving access to resources faster. It also would provide the
authority to contact agencies for assistance.
2:19:49 PM
MR. CORDERO said the state responded to the Mat-Su Borough's
request for assistance by saying that the statutes were vague.
He referred to the Legal Services memo in members' packet dated
February 10, 2020, from Megan Wallace, Director, who advised
that equipment failure could qualify as a "disaster" under AS
26.23.900(2)(C). Still, it should be defined to provide
certainty. HB 3 would clarify that cybersecurity is a problem
and define cyber attacks in statute.
2:20:23 PM
MR. CORDERO said the language on page 2 line 17, subparagraph
(F) would add cyberattacks to the definition, specifically if it
affects critical infrastructure. He characterized critical
infrastructure as key. It is a term typically used by the
federal government. It also identified information systems owned
or operated by the state or a political subdivision of the
state.
2:21:08 PM
MR. CORDERO stated that during the committee process, the
sponsor decided to define critical infrastructure using the
federal definition to provide further clarity, which read:
"critical infrastructure" means systems and assets,
whether physical or virtual, so vital to the state
that the incapacity or destruction of the systems and
assets would have a debilitating effect on security,
state economic security, state public health or
safety, or any combination of those matters;
MR. CORDERO said he stated "Alaska" instead of "state" for
emphasis.
2:21:43 PM
MR. CORDERO said a previous US President signed an order a few
years ago citing the different areas for critical
infrastructure, including chemicals, utilities, transportation,
and telecommunications. The Department of Military & Veterans
Affairs (DMVA) plans mitigation strategies and supports state
agencies once a disaster is declared. According to the Alaska
Disaster Act, part of the role includes advance planning. Last
year, DMVA testified that cybersecurity is not in their
guidelines because the term is not in statute.
2:23:06 PM
SENATOR MYERS said the definition states the critical
infrastructure must be "owned or operated by the state." He
asked how it would affect the electrical grid owned by various
cooperatives throughout the state since it is critical
infrastructure.
MR. CORDERO said the bill reads critical infrastructure "or" so
the definition would include the electrical grid.
2:23:54 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND read [subparagraph (F) a cyber attack that
affects] "critical infrastructure in the state, an information
system owned or operated by the state ...." He stated that
language would cover the electrical grid.
MR. CORDERO said the Department of Administration determines
what is included in critical infrastructure.
2:24:44 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 2, lines 23-24 of HB 3. She said
this language refers to cyber attacks that have not happened but
that could potentially happen. She surmised that if the
department knew ahead of time, it could possibly stop an attack,
but probably not. She wondered why it would be necessary to
declare a disaster.
2:25:28 PM
MR. CORDERO answered that the intelligence community typically
reaches out to government agencies about imminent cyber attacks.
If it is not contained and becomes widespread, the department
would need to take steps to issue a disaster declaration. Often,
the state identifies a vulnerability and the presence of a bad
actor. The department would determine if it warranted using
resources to ensure a cyber attack doesn't happen. He deferred
to the experts at DMVA to answer the question more fully.
2:26:31 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related her understanding that critical
infrastructure does not require state ownership. For example,
suppose banks were attacked and their infrastructure was
infiltrated or dismantled. The critical infrastructure would not
necessarily be a port or power line. She asked if HB 3 would
apply to private sector infrastructure.
MR. CORDERO answered that she was correct. He stated that
critical infrastructure could involve economic loss, lack of
food, medicine, or fuel.
2:27:47 PM
SENATOR SHOWER echoed Mr. Cordero's comments. He explained that
the intelligence community might indicate a cyber attack
happening somewhere in the world that potentially could happen
in Alaska. He surmised that the state could declare a disaster
in advance to prevent it.
2:28:16 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that Mr. Fisher from DMVA was available to
answer questions.
2:28:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she was initially concerned about the
language on page 3 defining "critical infrastructure" that read
"would have a debilitating effect on security ..." She wondered
if "debilitating" might be subjective but was reassured when she
read the existing language in statute includes "... widespread
or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, ...."
CHAIR HOLLAND turned to invited testifiers.
2:30:22 PM
PAULA VRANA, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Administration, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the administration
supports HB 3 since it does not change the structure of the
current Alaska Disaster Act statutes but will update the
statutes to address Alaska's current needs. She stated that
Chris Letterman, Chief Information Officer, Department of
Administration, could answer any technical questions.
2:31:55 PM
BRYAN FISHER, Director, Alaska Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Alaska, via Teams,
stated that the administration supports HB 3. He said he was
involved in the Mat-Su Borough (MSB) response to the cyber
attack that affected the borough and the City of Valdez.
MR. FISHER highlighted that the governor's cabinet has a subset
known as the governor's disaster cabinet that reviews a cyber
event, analyses it, and makes recommendations to the governor
based on the statutory definition on whether an event rises to
the level of a disaster emergency. He said the disaster cabinet
met three times and held six hours of discussions on this
definition. The division fully supports adding cyber attacks and
cyber events to the definition of "disaster".
2:33:17 PM
MR. FISHER, in response to Senator Hughes' earlier questions,
referred to a handout in members' packets from the Federal
Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency that identifies
16 critical infrastructure sectors. The State of Alaska
Emergency Operations Plan addresses cyber events. He stated that
a cyber attack that affects the economic sector is one measure.
However, the division has other programs and policies it must
consider. He said private businesses generally do not benefit
from state or federal disaster funds after an emergency is
declared.
MR. FISHER highlighted that a hurricane might fall into "the
credible threat of an imminent cyber attack or cyber event"
because weathermen can forecast hurricanes. Thus, communities
may need additional resources to prepare for one. He related
that the state deployed the US Army National Guard to remove
snow from roofs of critical infrastructure in Yakutat to prevent
damage. He suggested that any "imminent threat or credible
threat" as certified by the Department of Administration would
be similar.
2:35:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about "cyber event" as a term in the bill
that was not defined.
MR. FISHER emphasized the distinction between a cyber attack and
a cyber event. He highlighted instances of natural, man-made or
cyber attacks to infrastructure that are not necessarily cyber
attacks. These cyber events lack criminal, human, or terrorist
intent. However, these events could lead to system failures that
could compromise the security, availability, integrity and
assurance of systems. For example, some years ago, lightning
struck the State Office Building causing damage to the
telecommunications infrastructure.
2:37:30 PM
CHRIS LETTERMAN, Chief Information Security Officer, Office of
Information Technology, Department of Administration, Juneau,
Alaska, read prepared remarks.
The cyber threats that are facing the public sector
continue to evolve in terms of speed, volume, and
their impacts. Malicious cyber actors ranging from
novice to nation-state sponsored, are principally
motivated by financial gain and political ends. Cyber
threat to political sector critical infrastructure has
expanded the conversation beyond the digital into the
physical realm with the potential to impact life,
safety, and public health.
This legislation would support the state and political
subdivisions should critical infrastructure systems be
impacted by a cyber attack or a cyber event. It will
bring about a needed maturity to enable support
activities and timeliness of resources necessary for
recovery.
2:39:20 PM
PETER HOUSE, IT Security Expert, Deeptree, Inc., Palmer, Alaska,
via teleconference, said he was testifying from Utqiagvik. He
advised that he is a cybersecurity professional who worked on
the Mat-Su Borough during their cyber attack. He was surprised
at the number of departments that needed to restore services. He
reported that the cyber attack disrupted work throughout the
entire borough, so staff scrambled to find ways to do their jobs
without digital technology. He wondered what would happen if a
cyber event created life threatening events. He offered his view
that HB 3 will go a long way towards allowing a rapid response
to these cyber events and accelerate the state's ability to
ensure that critical services are available to the public with
minimal disruption. He said there are many metrics this bill
will help address.
MR. HOUSE reported that he has noticed an overall increase in
cyber attacks on organizations throughout Alaska from his
vantage point in the security operation center. He offered his
belief that HB 3 will go a long way to help the state respond to
cyber attacks or events.
2:42:13 PM
SENATOR SHOWER reported that the state receives an average of
over one million attempted cyber attacks per day.
2:42:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES appreciated Mr. House's insight. She indicated
that the legislature is concerned about keeping all communities
in the state safe.
2:43:30 PM
ERIK WYATT, IT Director, Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB),
Palmer, Alaska, via Teams, stated that the legislature was aware
of the MSB's cyber attack that occurred three years ago. He
highlighted that the cost of recovery from the cyber attack was
$2.5 million. Cyber attacks directed at critical infrastructure
adversely impacted the MSB and other political subdivisions'
ability to serve the public. He reported that the cyber attack
disrupted the borough for 60 days. MSB's critical infrastructure
affected included its emergency services (EMS), fire and rescue
services, and GIS resources that support them. The Kenai
Peninsula Borough (KPB) experienced a cyber attack that
adversely affected its 911 communications. Cyber attacks can
destroy or disrupt emergency operations and communications. The
MSB also provides water and sewer services to Talkeetna. During
the winter cyber attacks could halt transportation by disrupting
the borough's ability to plow roads.
2:46:04 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked what systems were affected in the Mat-Su
Borough cyber attack.
MR. WYATT answered that all MSB's IT systems were affected,
including email and servers. One exception was the separate
network that provides a land mobile radio system that supports
MSB's emergency services. He said that system was not affected.
2:46:55 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked what precautions the Mat-Su Borough has
taken since the cyber attack.
MR. WYATT answered that the Mat-Su Borough (MSB) added a
cybersecurity analyst position and converted another position to
a part-time chief information security officer. The borough also
added some IT security systems to create layered security that
will allow MSB to identify and isolate cyber threats. MSB also
issued contracts to allow the borough to reach out more quickly
to consultants and improve cybersecurity responses.
2:48:24 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), Juneau, Alaska, spoke in support of HB 3. He stated that
he agreed with the previous testifiers. He said AML supports the
language in the bill that includes political subdivisions. He
emphasized the importance of maintaining the relationship
between the state and its political subdivisions. Ambiguity is
the last thing needed during a cyber attack. AML supports
efforts to strengthen the state's Disaster Act. He characterized
it as critically important to ensure that state support and
resources are on hand for deploying efficiently and effectively
when a local government is overwhelmed by a cyber attack. He
said he appreciated the sponsor bringing this bill forward.
2:49:38 PM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that prevention is less expensive than
treatment. She asked if communities were acquiring expertise and
information to bring them current on cybersecurity measures.
2:50:11 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that AML has prioritized cybersecurity.
Last year, AML implemented a shared service program for local
governments that focuses on in-point protection. This helps to
ensure that all systems have the appropriate hygiene and
communities perform updates to ensure their systems are
protected. He remarked that federal infrastructure funding is
available to support that effort. He said that many local
governments have already added layers of protection to their
systems.
2:51:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said HB 3 would add language to the front of the
Disaster Act. However, the statutes provide powers once a
disaster is declared. He asked if the committee should narrow it
down to limit triggering these powers.
MR. FISHER answered that AS 26.23.020 of the Alaska Disaster Act
enumerates the governor's powers when a disaster emergency is
declared. He offered his view that narrowing these powers should
not be done. For example, Mr. Letterman stated how cyber threats
cross over from the virtual to the physical world. Suppose the
state had a cyber attack that caused water and electrical
distribution. There might be powers at the front end of these
statutes the governor has such as controlling access to a
disaster area if a kinetic or physical disruption occurred. Mr.
Wyatt stated that systems were in place for MSB to conduct
business electronically that had to change. Local ordinances and
the borough's charter allowed MSB to use some local
flexibilities. He envisioned the state might need the
flexibility to suspend regulations to enable the community to
conduct business in another way if their systems were
compromised, disrupting regular business functions.
2:54:20 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the Alaska Disaster Act has a nexus to
federal funds.
MR. FISHER answered yes. Just as the state can declare an
emergency, it can request federal disaster funds.
2:55:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she had the same concern. She advocated for
the legislature to revise the Alaska Disaster Act and to create
a separate section for health disasters. She expressed concern
about the checks and balances between governmental branches. It
might make sense for the legislature to decide if some executive
orders should continue. She acknowledged that this bill was not
the appropriate vehicle for a rewrite since it could delay
passage of HB 3.
2:57:22 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 3 in committee.
2:57:45 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:57 p.m.