04/24/2007 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2007
9:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Con Bunde
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 109(JUD) am
"An Act relating to bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and
campaign contributions; denying public employee retirement
pension benefits to certain legislators, legislative directors,
and public officers who commit certain offenses, and adding to
the duties of the Alaska Retirement Management Board and to the
list of matters governed by the Administrative Procedure Act
concerning that denial; relating to campaign financing and
ethics, including disclosures, in state and municipal
government, to lobbying, and to employment, service on boards,
and disclosures by certain public officers and employees who
leave state or municipal service or leave certain positions in
state or municipal government; restricting representation of
others by legislators and legislative employees; relating to
blind trusts approved by the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 109(JUD) AM OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to a requirement for competitive bidding on
contracts for the preparation of election ballots."
MOVED CSSB 95(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to the policy of the state regarding the state
budget and the source of funding used to cover a shortfall in
general fund revenue."
MOVED SB 134 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS/BRIBERY/RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(STA) Out of Committee
03/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/07/07 (H) DP: ROSES, DOLL, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
03/07/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, COGHILL, GRUENBERG
03/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(JUD) Out of Committee
03/23/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/28/07 (H) DP: LYNN, SAMUELS, RAMRAS
03/28/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
03/28/07 (H) AM: GRUENBERG, DAHLSTROM, HOLMES
04/02/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/02/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 109(JUD) AM
04/04/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
04/24/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 95
SHORT TITLE: COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR BALLOT PREP
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE
02/26/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
04/17/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/17/07 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 134
SHORT TITLE: FUNDING SHORTFALL POLICY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN
03/21/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/07 (S) STA, FIN
04/19/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/19/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/19/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM BRICE
Alaska State District Council of Laborers
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 109 with amendment.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Elections
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 95.
PATRICK FOSTER, A.T. Publishing
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 95.
JASON HOOLEY
Office of Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 95.
ONNIE KENDALL, Manager
Service Business Printing
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 95.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL MCGUIRE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:09:25 AM. Senators McGuire,
French, Bunde, and Green were present at the call to order.
Senator Stevens arrived shortly thereafter.
CSHB 109(JUD) AM - DISCLOSURES & ETHICS/BRIBERY/RETIREMENT
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of CSHB 109(JUD) AM.
9:10:52 AM
TOM BRICE, Alaska State District Council of Laborers, said he is
testifying on behalf of Local 71, the state blue collar public
employees, regarding the hiring practices of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). Specifically, they
do not hire flaggers or other state operators if other family
members are also employed by the state. For example, if a
mother/daughter flagging crew work together they will need to go
through a waiver process to be recalled to work.
MR. BRICE said he has been working towards a solution so that
individuals going to work for the state have a reasonable
expectation to work based on their merit, not upon whether or
not they are related to someone else in state service. He
distributed a proposed amendment for the committee to consider.
9:15:01 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if he thought they needed to amend the bill
today.
MR. BRICE answered yes. DOTPF said it would require a statutory
change to allow these types of relations to continue in the
workplace.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if the amendment kept the supervision of
family member's elements in place.
MR. BRICE answered yes.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if he could see any unanticipated
consequences.
9:16:32 AM
MR. BRICE replied that unanticipated effects amount to nothing.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she thought the way the law had been carried
out was that a person can't supervise a family member, but in
small communities where people are working on an airstrip, for
instance, you could have a mother and daughter or brothers
working in similar capacities.
MR. BRICE replied as long as they are not in a supervisory role,
it's okay. He added that the definition for "supervision" came
from the State Administrative Code and the issue cannot be
negotiated because it is in statute.
9:18:22 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked how broad the definition is and if it is for
all levels of employment.
9:19:12 AM
MR. BRICE replied that the definition is broad enough to cover
situations when the state is doing maintenance and might need a
flagger, for example. The same situation might happen in Klawock
where two brothers are operating - neither having supervisory
authority over the other.
CHAIR MCGUIRE moved Amendment 1 as follows:
New AS 39.52.910(d). "Nothing in this Act shall supersede the
provisions of AS 39.90.020, nor preclude individuals from being
in an employment relationship with an immediate family member
where neither family member is a supervisor who has authority to
act or to effectively recommend action in the interest of the
public employer in one of the following supervisory functions,
if the exercise of that authority is not merely routine but
requires the exercise of independent judgment:
(a) employing, including hiring, transferring, laying off,
or recalling;
(b) discipline, including suspension, discharge, demotion,
or issuance of written warnings; or
(c) Grievance adjudication, including responding to a
first level grievance under a collective bargaining
agreement."
SENATOR BUNDE objected saying he would be uncomfortable passing
the amendment without thorough vetting with DOTPF and that it
could be dealt with in a separate bill.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if Senator French would take it up in the
Judiciary Committee. Since the 2007 construction season was
coming up, she wanted to make sure it was addressed.
9:21:29 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he supports the spirit of the amendment. It
is almost impossible to keep family members from being employed
by the same town or department. However, family members should
not be supervising one another or making decisions about future
employment. He wants to take a deeper look at the amendment in
Judiciary Committee and run it through Legislative Legal before
adoption.
CHAIR MCGUIRE agreed and withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR MCGUIRE brought up a conceptual amendment regarding
lawmakers raising funds during session for another person who is
running for elected office. Legislators are not allowed to
campaign for themselves during the legislative session and she
said the question is why they would campaign for anyone else.
9:23:33 AM
SENATOR GREEN said she had the same question and suggested it
meant campaigning for other than a state office such as a city
or borough election or for someone not currently in office.
CHAIR MCGUIRE wanted the idea brought up for discussion. There
is a concept behind the law that you don't want to allow
lawmakers to raise money for themselves while they're in office
because of the power they hold and the ability to leverage
things. One might be able to draw a similar assumption if a
lawmaker were campaigning on behalf of an assembly seat for
example, because the assembly comes to the legislature for
money.
SENATOR BUNDE said he agreed with her.
9:25:51 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said actively campaigning for a colleague's
opponent could interfere with the lawmaking process.
SENATOR STEVENS said a letter from Joyce Anderson, Ethics
Commission, talks about campaigning during session for someone
running for governor and he didn't want to give up that right
just because he's a legislator.
CHAIR MCGUIRE responded that maybe an amendment would clarify
which positions are meant.
SENATOR FRENCH used the example of a school board election. He
wondered if they give up their rights as citizens to participate
in the process because they get elected to office. This seems
unrealistic.
9:27:44 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she feels it is inappropriate for her to
campaign on behalf of assembly or school board candidates even
though there isn't a law against it. Supporting a candidate in
an assembly race, in particular, could improperly influence
someone's opinion. She clarified that she was talking about when
they were sitting in session.
9:29:17 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said this is about raising funds. Legislators are
not prohibited from writing a personal check to a candidate. He
said he chooses not to get involved in local elections, because
he might have to work with the person at some point. If
legislators cannot raise funds for themselves, they should not
be raising funds for someone else.
SENATOR GREEN asked if writing a check could be construed as
raising funds.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked, "How could it not be."
SENATOR GREEN responded, "I think you do give up that right."
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she would work on the amendment for the
Judiciary Committee to clarify that raising funds for an
individual does not take away a legislator's ability to
personally contribute to that candidate. What is really meant
is that a lawmaker can't hold a fundraiser for a person running
for a state office. The committee could debate about excluding
the lieutenant governor and governor.
9:31:11 AM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that in some cases endorsing a
candidate could be the kiss of death.
SENATOR GREEN said it is legal for a governor and lieutenant
governor to receive money during the session.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said the governor and lieutenant governor are
treated differently. Legislators have always had a clear
prohibition between the time they are serving, making laws and
appropriating money, and the time when they are not. If the
logic follows in one area, it is a stretch to not apply it in
another area.
SENATOR FRENCH said he disagrees. The idea that you're going to
use your power to influence something that happens in the
building on behalf of a candidate that is not elected strikes
him as being unrealistic. Once you take that step, you have to
consider ballot initiatives and propositions, or ask whether
legislators can raise money for charities on their days off.
9:33:05 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said people see the difference between charity
which doesn't have a political value and using one's position
during the session to fundraise, which is wrong whether it is
for someone competing against a colleague or for an assembly
candidate.
SENATOR BUNDE said maybe legally legislators do not give up many
rights when choosing to serve, but from the public's perspective
legislators are held to a different standard.
9:34:54 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she will refine the amendment and offer it in
the Senate Judiciary Committee. She will also work with the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to narrow the
parameters.
9:35:36 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony for HB 109. No further
amendments or discussion were offered.
SENATOR GREEN moved to report CSHB 109(JUD) AM from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection, the motion carried.
The committee took an at-ease at 9:36 AM.
SB 95 - COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR BALLOT PREP
9:39:22 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 95.
SENATOR BUNDE, sponsor of SB 95, said this is a bill by request
from a vendor who was not allowed to bid for a ballot printing
contract. He said the State of Alaska does a lot of business
with small and large businesses in Alaska, and state spending is
a huge factor in the state's economy. The state utilizes
competitive bidding in many areas, but surprisingly does not do
so for printing state ballots. He believes the process ought to
be open to competitive bidding.
SB 95 allows for competitive bidding for printing ballots. It is
clear that because the integrity of ballots is critical to the
election process, their printing does not necessarily have to go
through the Procurement Code. However, the Division of Elections
could develop its own regulations for competitive bidding so its
unique specifications could be met to insure integrity. It seems
difficult to believe that only one printer in the State of
Alaska could meet the criteria.
9:42:19 AM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Elections, said while
she understands Senator Bunde's position, the most important
aspect of the election is the ballot. It is extremely important
for the division to have some sort of certainty that the ballots
are being prepared correctly; including correctly placed timing
marks, proper paper, and correct fold locations so that the oval
will be read on an optical scan unit.
MS. BREWSTER said certainty is important in an environment where
there are challenges to the ballot. She reminded the committee
that a court order in 2004 required the ballots be reprinted. It
is important that the division have a vendor who will stick by
it in difficult times. In that case, the printer worked around
the clock to get the second batch of ballots printed in time to
be tested and distributed to the regional offices.
She said rapport and trust are very important in considering who
ultimately prints the ballots. After hearing Senator Bunde's
intent that the division creates its own procurement process
some of her concerns are relieved. However, the process would
need to be started two or three months prior to an election to
accommodate all the other deadlines the division faces.
MS. BREWSTER said she is unclear whether the bidding would be
open to any vendor who owns an Alaska business license. If this
is the case, a job could potentially go to an out-of-state
vendor who holds an Alaskan business license. Then the division
may have to deal with the possibility of ballots being damaged,
which has occurred when out-of-state vendors have been used in
the past. It could be difficult to get that kind of problem
corrected very close to election time.
9:47:15 AM
MS. BREWSTER also said the law indicates absentee ballots are to
be sent out as soon as they are ready for distribution. The
division currently has a vendor who prints the ballot and hand
delivers them to each election office, except Nome, where they
get mailed. This allows the division to get them ready for
distribution almost immediately, increasing the chance that they
will get absentee ballots to the voter and back in time to be
counted for an election. This is especially important to
military and overseas voters. In all practicality the mail
service sometimes does not deliver the ballot in time to be
counted in an election. Additionally, when dealing with an out-
of-state vendor, Alaska may fall low on the priority list. A
vendor may be printing millions of ballots for Los Angeles, for
instance. The division has faced this problem in other areas.
She said the Division of Elections goes through the procurement
process on everything except ballot printing and transportation.
Her opinion is the process now works very well and she wants it
kept as is.
SENATOR BUNDE said he does not believe the division has to go
through the procurement process to have competitive bidding. He
thinks the division can develop its own criteria and a legal
opinion suggests he is correct. He said that everything that Ms.
Brewster mentioned could be addressed with another printer.
Another printer would not be selected if it couldn't do the job.
There is the argument of convenience, but all state departments
would like the convenience of single sourcing. The division
could write in a preference for in-state contractors as is done
in the procurement process and the transportation issue could be
addressed in the bid criteria. Bid criterion could take care of
a lot of the division's concerns.
9:51:42 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how the division arrives at a price and is
assured the state is getting a good deal when working with one
printer.
MS. BREWSTER replied that the ballot cost for the special
election was $120,000. For the 2006 primary it was roughly
$190,000. The division looked at the cost comparison of Sequoia,
the printer used before 2002, and Printworks, the current
printer. At the time Printworks was the only Diebold certified
printer in the State and that was a determining factor for
selecting them. From that point there have been nominal changes.
The ballot price has increased one cent per ballot since that
time.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if she has done a comparison of other
printers since then.
MS. BREWSTER replied no.
9:53:52 AM
PATRICK FOSTER, A.T. Publishing, Anchorage, said he has worked
in the print industry in Alaska for nearly 30 years and supports
SB 95. He said Alaska has several companies capable of printing
the ballots. The state uses Diebold electronic ballot leaders to
tally results for elections and Diebold must certify ballots
destined for their machines. At the time Alaska started using
ballot leaders, no Alaskan company was certified. Shortly
thereafter, one shop was certified and has been handed the jobs
ever since, despite the desire of other companies to be included
in the bid process.
MR. FOSTER said A.T. Publishing became a Diebold certified
printer in 2003. The division likely has a comfort level working
with the same printer, but Mr. Foster makes a living trying to
provide his clients with the same level of comfort. He recently
won the ballot-printing contract with the Municipality of
Anchorage, after the contract was put out for competitive bid.
The municipal clerk was initially concerned about an open bid,
but then found that the transition was easy and the city saved
money.
Some claim the complexity of Alaska ballots is reason enough to
keep things as they are and could be daunting for some small
shops, but there are many companies in Alaska capable of
handling the volume of work in the time required. Competitive
bidding for ballot printing would probably save the state money
and allow more companies to upgrade their facilities and improve
their standing in the industry.
9:57:55 AM
SENATOR BUNDE noted for the record a potential conflict because
Mr. Foster resides in his district.
CHAIR MCGUIRE acknowledged the potential conflict.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Alaskan printers would have an
advantage or disadvantage competing with out-of-state vendors.
MR. FOSTER said he competes with many lower-48 businesses. The
Alaska product preference rules level the playing field. He
noted that the City of Anchorage was using Diebold directly, for
five years, and when the contract went out for bid, shipping
proved to be a disadvantage for out of state printers. He
surmised that half a dozen to a dozen companies statewide can
effectively compete.
CHAIR MCGUIRE commented that Alaska product preference rules
could be included in the division's procurement process. She
also maintained it would be constitutionally upheld to require
the bid stay in Alaska. Shipping and timing make a clear
argument for that and more points could be given in these areas.
10:01:11 AM
JASON HOOLEY, Office of Lieutenant Governor, said his office
does not oppose the legislation but echoes the concerns raised
by Ms. Brewster. He said the provision has been on the books
since 1960 and has served the division, voters, and vendors
well. However, the division's primary loyalty is to the voters
rather than to a particular vendor.
He noted that Alaska is not the only jurisdiction with a closed-
bid process. Three other states have a closed bid process and
some counties in other states use sole-source bidding.
10:03:38 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked how many of the 46 open bid states follow
the proposed procedure.
SENATOR BUNDE added that the state has used a variety of vendors
since 1960 despite the fact that the closed bid provision has
been on the books.
MR. HOOLEY agreed.
MS. BREWSTER replied each state is different. In Alaska, state
and federal elections are conducted by the State Division of
Elections, whereas in other states individual counties conduct
state and federal elections. The 46 states mentioned earlier are
not necessarily using open bidding statewide for their ballot
printing. Within a state, one county may sole-source while
another may have an open bidding process.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if the states conduct their own state
elections.
MS. BREWSTER replied no.
10:06:37 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for clarification on Alaska product
preference rules.
MS. BREWSTER said she is not an expert on the procurement code
and declined to answer.
ONNIE KENDALL, Manager, Service Business Printing, Anchorage,
said he supports the bill because the current situation is not
good for the state or the printing community. Since the project
is currently sole sourced the state is not receiving a price
balanced by the competitive process.
10:07:57 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if Mr. Kendall's company is different from
Mr. Foster's and if it can bid on something like this.
MR. KENDALL answered yes to both.
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony on SB 95.
CHAIR MCGUIRE noted Amendment 1 from Senator Bunde, labeled 25-
LS0638\A.1, as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "a requirement for competitive bidding on"
Insert "the State Procurement Code and"
Page 2, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "for the preparation of ballots by [WITHOUT]
obtaining competitive bids"
Insert "under AS 36.30 (State Procurement Code) for the
preparation of ballots [WITHOUT OBTAINING COMPETITIVE BIDS]"
Page 4, following line 1:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 36.30.850(b)(7) is amended to read:
(7) contracts for the [PREPARATION AND]
transportation of ballots under AS 15;
* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to contracts for the
preparation of ballots for elections conducted on or after
January 1, 2008."
SENATOR BUNDE said the amendment was written in case the
committee felt it was needed, but he didn't believe it was
necessary or advisable to require the division to go through the
full procurement process.
CHAIR MCGUIRE agreed.
10:09:21 AM
SENATOR GREEN said it sounds like the Anchorage put its bid out
for multiple years. She asked if that was the intention of this
bill or would there be a new bid for every election.
SENATOR BUNDE said that isn't his intention but he would leave
that decision to the Division of Elections to make it work best
for them. He suspects a multiple year bid would be more
economical.
10:10:09 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said Mr. Foster recommended each bid be awarded
for an election cycle with a performance option for a second
cycle and the bill gives the division that kind of discretion.
CHAIR MCGUIRE anticipates the division will look at vendors
without being preferential. She would like to encourage the
Alaska bidding preference.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if a requirement for an Alaskan preference
should be considered to address the division's concerns about
the problems with shipping and timing.
SENATOR BUNDE said he is no expert on procurement code, but has
a legal opinion stating this bill would not have to go under
that code. He believes that after hearing Ms. Brewster's
testimony the division would include an Alaskan preference.
10:12:45 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Ms. Brewster if conceptual language should
be added for an Alaskan preference in the competitive bid
process.
MS. BREWSTER said she didn't think it was necessary.
SENATOR GREEN said Amendment 1 has applicability language and
the legislation does not. She asked if an applicability date
should be added.
10:14:37 AM
MS. BREWSTER answered it would be advantageous to have an
applicability date.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if it would be feasible to apply these
provisions to the next general election to give a year and half
lead time.
MS. BREWSTER answered it would be preferable to apply this to
both a primary and general so the division is dealing with the
same vendor for both elections.
SENATOR BUNDE clarified that he is referring to the next general
election cycle.
10:16:21 AM
SENATOR BUNDE moved to adopt a conceptual amendment "that the
date of application would be the next statewide general election
cycle, or whatever the proper terms would be."
CHAIR MCGUIRE said the conceptual amendment would be a new
section 2, an applicability clause.
SENATOR BUNDE restated the conceptual amendment as "ballot
procurement would apply to the next general election cycle,
January 1, 2008, perhaps."
MS. BREWSTER said that date would work.
10:18:01 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked when the contract with the current vendor
ends.
MS. BREWSTER replied that contracts go from election to
election.
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced there were no further objections so
conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
10:19:29 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said none of this should be interpreted as a
criticism of the Division of Elections. This is an issue of
fairness and he reminded the committee that the current vendor
may be the successful applicant in the future.
SENATOR BUNDE moved to report SB 95 as amended from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSSB 95(STA) moved from the Senate State
Affairs Committee.
SB 134 - FUNDING SHORTFALL POLICY
10:21:51 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 134. She said
the bill is really a finance issue and does not want to hold it
up in this committee.
SENATOR GREEN moved to report SB 134 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being
no objection, the motion carried.
CHAIR MCGUIRE adjourned the Senate State Affairs meeting at
10:22:46 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|