02/28/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB34 | |
| SB23|| SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2019
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Scott Kawasaki (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Commissioner, Department of Administration
Kelly Tshibaka - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to probation; relating to a program allowing
probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions
of probation; relating to early termination of probation;
relating to parole; relating to a program allowing parolees to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole;
relating to early termination of parole; relating to eligibility
for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 34(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act making special appropriations from the earnings reserve
account for the payment of permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 24
"An Act directing the Department of Revenue to pay dividends to
certain eligible individuals; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 34
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/19 (S) STA, FIN
02/07/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/07/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/07/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/19 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
02/12/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/12/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/12/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/14/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/19/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/19/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/21/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 23
SHORT TITLE: APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/16/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/19 (S) STA, FIN
02/05/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/05/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/05/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 24
SHORT TITLE: PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/16/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/19 (S) STA, FIN
02/05/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/05/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/05/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY TSHIBAKA, Commissioner Designee
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the position of
commissioner of the Department of Administration.
SCOTT DAHL, representing self
Inspector General U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of the Department of
Administration.
MICHELLE HARTLINE, representing self
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of the Department of
Administration.
LYNN HALFFORD, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the nomination of
Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of the Department of
Administration.
SCOTT OGAN, Senior Policy Advisor
Senator Mike Shower
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation of the proposed
amendments to the CS for SB 34, version M.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Criminal Division
Department of Law
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about the effect of
proposed amendments to the CS for SB 34, version M.
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 34.
JEFFREY EDWARDS, Director
State Board Parole
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions related to SB 34.
DAVID OTNESS, representing self
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 23 and SB 24,
testified that he'd like to see residents come together as a
state before the dividend money is returned.
CHARLES MCKEE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 23 and SB
24 and noted he also submitted written information.
MIKE PRAX representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
LARRY CALVIN, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
DAVID NOON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he doesn't think that passing
SB 23 and SB 24 is a wise move for the state.
BRIAN MERRIT, representing self
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
ROBERT HALL, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During public testimony on SB 23 and SB 24,
predicted the outcome and offered suggestions for a different
path forward.
DONALD WESTLAND, representing self
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JACK DETZEL, representing self
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
DR. SOL NEELY, PhD, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JESSE BJORKMAN representing self
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
STEPHANIE CRONIN representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in adamant opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
PATRICK MAYER, representing self
Yakutat, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
AMY SWEENEY, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
SUE LITMAN representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in vehement opposition to SB 23
and SB 24.
DAVID BRIGHTON, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
GHERET ABBOTT, representing self
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
EARL LACKEY, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
LUANN MCVEY, representing self
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
RICHARD STEELE representing self
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JANET MCCABE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
BONNIE WOLDSTAD, citizens of our great state
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
SCOTT MACMANUS representing self
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
MIKE ILLG, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in vehement opposition to SB 23
and SB 24.
PATRICK HEUER, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
AMY AINSLIE representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MARIE MCCONNEL representing self
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
LAURA STATTS, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
DR. VALERY BROOKS, PhD, representing self
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
LOY THURMAN, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
BETH FREAD representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
DOUG HERGERT representing self
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JIM CHEYDIEUR, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 23 and SB 24,
testified in opposition to the budget Governor Dunleavy
released.
MIKE COONS, representing self; president
Alaska Chapter of the Association of Mature American Citizens
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
HEATHER ASSELIN, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
CRIS EICHENLAUB, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
SIMON GORBATY, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
COLLAUNA MARLEY, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
FRED STURMAN, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
KARLA HART, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
DONNA SCHULTZ, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JANALEE GAGE representing self
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
RAYCE WITTNER, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
GEORGE PIERCE representing self
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24
as currently written.
DAVE AND NOEL MAXWELL, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
SCOTT HAYDEN, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
WILLIAM QUAYLE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
RALPH WATKINS, Superintendent
Hoonah City Schools
Hoonah, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to both SB 23 and SB
24.
JOY LYON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KYNEDI CLARK, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that she is a sixth grade honor
roll student who opposes SB 23 and SB 24.
MARY TONY, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
MATH TRAFTON, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
ZOE TRAFTON, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MARY JANE "MJ" LEGRANDE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KATIE PITTMAN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MELODY JORDAN, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that she is adamantly opposed to
SB 23 and SB 24 and the entire budget.
ED MARTIN JR. representing self
Coopers Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
GLENN CRAVEZ, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KAREN CORBEL, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KARI SAGEL, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KATE JOHNSON, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
HARVEY BRANDT, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in vehement opposition to SB 23
and SB 24.
RANDY VIRGIN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 23 and SB 24,
stated that it should not be a choice between a PFD payout and
government services.
LILI SANTORO, representing self and her daughter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
KIM NELSON, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
BETH HACK, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
GLEN BUTTS, representing self
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
LYNETTE CLARK, representing self
Fox, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
MARGO O'CONNEL, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24
and the governor's budget.
ANGELA BOWERS, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
STEVE WASHBURN, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
KIM HAYES, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
MICHAEL BOWLES, representing self
Seward, Palmer
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
JULIE SMYTH, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MICHAEL MAUSBACK, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MARK SPRINGER, representing self
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MERRIE CULP-WASHBURN, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
CHARLIE PIERCE, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
JEANINE BROOKS, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in firm opposition to SB 23 and SB
24.
RICK MOORE, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
CARL CLARK, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
JOE MONTAGNA, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
DEB SCHULTZ, representing self
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
OLE CHRISTENSON, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
MICHAEL TAVOLIERO, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
JOSEPH CAYABYAB, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
DIANE HOLMES, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JENNIFER REED, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
JANICE CHANDLER, representing self
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
FORREST KUIPER, representing self
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
BRENDON HOPKINS, representing self
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
HAROLD BORBRIDGE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
GRACE BROOKS, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24.
LINDA SCHANDELMEIER, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to.
SUZANNE DUTSON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
MORRIS NASSUK, representing self and his kids
Koyuk, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
GREG WEIBER, representing self
MatSu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
KATHERINE PRUSSIAN, representing self
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
DALTON STOKES, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
CHARLES LESTER, representing self
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
BERT HOUGHGALING, representing self
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:34 PM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Micciche, Reinbold, and Chair
Shower. Senator Kawasaki attended via teleconference.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Commissioner, Department of Administration
3:32:13 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced that the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing for Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of
the Department of Administration (DOA).
3:32:27 PM
KELLY TSHIBAKA, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Administration (DOA), Anchorage, , testified as appointee to the
position of commissioner of the Department of Administration.
She provided introductory comments reading from the following
prepared document:
Thank you for having me today. I'm joined by my
husband Niki and son Josiah. We have 4 other
wonderful children watching us at home, Denali,
Joseph, Justice, and Elora.
I was born and raised in Anchorage. Most of my family
still lives in Alaska. I spent many winter weekends in
the Conoco Philips tower as a child. My mom was an
auditor and she would have me help her on her
projects. She'd hand me those long spools of paper
with holes on the sides her work papers and ask me
to highlight any numbers over a certain amount. That's
where I developed values for accountability and fiscal
responsibility. My dad, on the other hand, was a proud
IBEW electrician with ATU, which became ACS. From him
I learned the value that comes when a work team stays
united. I also learned to question authority, in a
respectful way.
I loved growing up here I remember hunting with dad
and eating moose tongue sandwiches, playing ice
hockey, taking classes at UAA, and doing many theater
productions. One highlight was getting to be the
pitcher of the All Star softball team that won the
Alaska state championship and got to play at nationals
one year. That was amazing.
After graduating from Steller, I went to Texas A&M.
One summer I worked for Senator Ted Stevens on the
United States Senate Appropriations Committee. I then
attended Harvard Law School. After law school, I
joined the Department of Justice Office of the
Inspector General. Nearly every federal agency has an
OIG responsible for promoting efficiency and
effectiveness, and detecting and deterring waste,
fraud, and abuse. They accomplish this primarily
through audits, investigations, inspections, and
multidisciplinary reviews. It turns out the values my
parents instilled in me accountability, fiscal
responsibility, team unity, and questioning authority
were a perfect alignment for an OIG career!
At the Department of Justice OIG, I investigated
complex cases like the abuse of Arabs and Muslims
detained after the September 11 terrorist attacks a
case that was heard before the US Supreme Court. I
also oversaw audits, investigations, and inspections
of DOJ programs and operations, and assisted in
managing more than 400 employees nationwide.
After the Department of Justice OIG, I was the first
hire at the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence OIG, which was established after the 9/11
Commission report found the need for a federal agency
to oversee all the Intelligence Community agencies,
including the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA, FBI,
State Department and others. I served as legal counsel
in the office and co-led the creation and
establishment of the office. In that role, I
investigated misconduct by presidential appointees,
participated in projects like improving the process
for deciding whose names go on the terrorist
watchlist, and evaluated the ODNI agency's culture and
effectiveness. I briefed the Director of National
Intelligence many times on our projects, and I
advocated successfully for legislation that
established the Intelligence Community Inspector
General in statute by working collaboratively with
Inspectors General, General Counsel offices,
Congressional oversight committees, and White House
staffers over 5 years.
Following the ODNI OIG, I served as a Special Advisor
in the ODNI's Civil Liberties and Privacy Office where
I participated in developing guidance for the
Intelligence Community on civil liberties and privacy
issues in collaborative electronic environments, use
of social media information, and the development of
research projects.
Afterwards, I joined the Federal Trade Commission
where I served as the Chief Investigator and Legal
Counsel, and later as the Acting Inspector General. I
led our team to complete high-risk, core mission
reviews of an agency with a $300 million dollar budget
and 1200 employees. For example, we examined how
effective the FTC was at achieving its mission of
protecting consumers. We also investigated allegations
made by Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that
FTC attorneys conspired to fabricate evidence to
increase the FTC's number of successful enforcement
actions. In addition, we performed information
security audits, financial statement audits,
performance inspections, and investigations of
misconduct.
Most recently, I founded and established the Office of
the Chief Data Officer for the United States Postal
Service Office of the Inspector General. As the Chief
Data Officer, I served on a 9-person executive team
responsible for oversight of the US Postal Service, an
agency with more than $70 Billion in annual revenue,
$13 Billion in contracts, and 620,000 employees. The
OIG, in contrast, had just over 1000 people and $250
Million dollars. We found the most effective way to do
oversight was to leverage data analytics to find even
greater cost savings and efficiencies, and to know
where to look for misconduct and risk. Our data
analytics led to more than $1.9 Billion in financial
impact, $179M in cost avoidances, 225 criminal case
outcomes, and enabled our OIG to do more with less. We
also led innovative efforts to identify illegal
opioids in more than 5 billion parcels delivered
annually. This unprecedented use of data analytics
substantially advanced multi-agency efforts to prevent
drug trafficking.
CDO was successful because it included data
scientists, investigators, auditors, and analysts in
one interdisciplinary cross-OIG division. It became
the largest CDO office in the OIG community, advancing
collaboration on critical incident and emergent
issues, transforming the OIG into a data-led agency,
and offering resources and assistance to OIGs across
the federal government.
My OIG background has shaped how I'll approach being
the Commissioner of the Department of Administration:
promote efficiency and effectiveness; pursue
innovations and cost savings; and achieve results.
I mentioned that summer our team won the state
softball championship. That really shaped my view on
leadership. I learned that no position on the team was
more important than another. We had to work as an
integrated, cohesive unit. I might have been the
pitcher, but we would have lost the game without first
base, or left field. The same is true for any group I
lead. I believe we are an integrated team, and I
simply play a part on that team.
On a more personal note, I met my husband Niki in law
school, and we moved to Washington, DC together.
Initially our ambition was to become great lawyers --
leaders of all! But God really changed our hearts.
We're Christians, but our faith really took on a
different [form] those years instead of becoming
leaders of all, we wanted to be servants of all. We
started a church that focuses on developing leaders,
healing people from trauma and addiction, and helping
orphans, refugees, and women and children who are
victims of human trafficking. It's been very rewarding
for me to help people along in their spiritual
journeysto help them become the person they've always
wanted to be.
Whether it's people or it's organizations, I love
helping people become who they've always wanted to be.
And organizations are just collections of people with
a purpose. I enjoy helping organizations become the
best they can be.
As the Commissioner of the Department of
Administration, I will help the Department become the
best it can be. And in so doing, the agencies of the
state of Alaska will be able to better serve Alaskans.
Thank you for having me today.
3:40:49 PM
CHAIR SHOWER summarized that some people have commented that you
are overqualified but in these times your resume brings
impressive credentials that are probably needed. He said your
experience in the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and
independent attitude is also important in how you would look for
fraud, waste and abuse in government and trying to make it
better. He said that's important, although you obviously work
for the governor. He said the final topic to get on the record
is whether you would have a problem separating your faith from
your duties and following the law as a public servant.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA replied she is and has always
been open and transparent about her faith, but she does not
impose it on others. She opined that it is her transparency that
builds trust among her workforce and makes them feel comfortable
in the diversity. "They feel comfortable about being transparent
about who they are, too, so it makes strong teams." She
emphasized that she has no problem upholding the law. She said
she has been in situations in the past where she didn't agree
with the decisions her superiors made and she had to implement.
CHAIR SHOWER asked her to expand on the point that when you work
for someone you need to be able to highlight policies or
decisions that don't make sense or are headed in a direction
that isn't the best.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA replied there are two types of
situations where you need to bring problems to the attention of
your superiors. One is when you disagree because the data
doesn't support the direction. She said she's been in that
situation and if she found herself in that situation now, she
would feel comfortable bringing it to the attention of the
governor. However, if he didn't agree and went in a different
direction, she would go in that direction too, because he's her
superior. The other situation is if your superior is doing
something that is obviously wrong or illegal. She's also been in
the situation and she didn't have a problem reporting it to an
independent body. She clarified that she has not had to do
either of these with the governor.
CHAIR SHOWER said your answer is encouraging. Those are
important character traits and the people need to understand
that commissioners are in positions of high authority and are
held to a higher standard than citizens.
3:45:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was impressed with Ms. Tshibaka's
resume and thankful she was willing to take the job. She opined
that Ms. Tshibaka is overqualified and noted that the state is
in crisis. She thanked her for helping with trauma and addiction
problems and trying to reduce drug trafficking.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if she was prepared to ensure that the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFCME is respected as the
law of the land.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA said yes; the department
immediately stopped taking deductions from agency fee payers and
allowed employees to become nonmembers. She added that they are
watching other states and the trends and will implement the law
accordingly.
SENATOR REINBOLD opined that union contracts are a major driver
in the budget and should be part of the open meetings act. She
said she would understand if Ms. Tshibaka didn't want to
comment.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA replied she checked on that after
their recent meeting and found that union contract meetings are
open to the public.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked her for the information. She turned to
the topic of IRIS and commented that, "under the Division of
Finance, it is kind of a disaster." She asked Ms. Tshibaka to
commit to help make the IRIS online banking system more
transparent.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA said she has already requested a
full report. She added that she knows that there is a contract
to update the software, and that there are differences between
IRIS and the statewide reporting system, the Alaska Data
Enterprise Reporting System (ALDER). "I am concerned about your
concerns and I will keep looking into it," she said.
3:49:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL thanked her for taking the job. He asked if she
had looked at the Alaska Land Mobile Radio System (ALMR) and
whether the system's problems could be fixed or if it was
advisable to start over.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA replied she knows that all the
ALMR equipment is being changed and she recalls that there is
budgeting and planning to upgrade the entire system in three
years. She said she did not recall the name of the upgrade.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that ALMR is a critical link, but it's
been something of a "pain in the neck." He encouraged her to
engage with the federal government for help on the upgrade.
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted for the public that the Public
Defender [Agency] and the [Office] of Public Advocacy reside
within the Department of Administration (DOA). She opined that
the public defender has had an odd way of calculating the
caseloads in the office and asked Ms. Tshibaka if she was aware
of that method of calculation.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA replied she and the public
defender have discussed how cases are calculated and weighted
and how the office chooses to conflict out and turn cases over
to the Office of Public Advocacy. "We're working together to
develop an audit of the office to figure out the best way to do
business in his office and to figure out what resources he needs
to best address his caseload," she said.
SENATOR REINBOLD encouraged a hard audit and offered her belief
that many of the difficult cases are conflicted out and handed
to the Office of Public Advocacy despite the Public Defender
Agency's considerable funding. She added that she supports
starting an office of victim advocacy.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that Ms. Tshibaka will have a
workload that meets her impressive credentials. He said he
appreciates her energy and spirit and he looks forward to
working with her on the budget.
3:55:45 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony.
3:56:02 PM
SCOTT DAHL, representing self, Inspector General U.S. Department
of Labor, Washington, DC, stated that he appreciates the
opportunity to highly recommend Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner
of the Department of Administration. He can attest to many of
the things that have been said about her background and resume.
She's always up to a challenge and brings energy to everything
she does. "I heartily endorse her," he said.
3:57:39 PM
MICHELLE HARTLINE, representing self, Nikiski, testified in
support of the nomination of Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of
the Department of Administration. She said she has known Kelly
Tshibaka since she was born. She was precocious and driven as a
child and selfless in giving her time and talent to the
community as she got older. This included serving meals to the
homeless at Beans Cafe and comforting the handicapped at an
Anchorage nursing facility. She graduated high school at age 15
and confidently went alone to Texas A&M University. She opined
that Kelly represents the ideal of Alaskan youth that parents
and educators work hard for their children to become. She has
always been able to excel in a myriad of subjects and tasks,
always employing logic, humor, and common sense. She has the
unique ability to see and accept people for who they are without
judgement. She will be an asset to the department and the state.
4:00:17 PM
LYNN HALLFORD, representing self, Palmer, testified in support
of the nomination of Kelly Tshibaka as commissioner of the
Department of Administration. She related that she is retired
and a former oil industry auditor. She has known Ms. Tshibaka
since she was a child and she has always been positive, hard-
working, filled with integrity and spunk. Her auditing
background will help DOA achieve efficiencies and help save the
state money.
4:01:22 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony, thanked everyone who took
the time to call, and asked Ms. Tshibaka if she had any closing
comments.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TSHIBAKA said, "thanks to Scott, Mom, and
Lynn."
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that there were several more people from
across the state who wanted to testify, but in the interest of
time the committee was moving forward.
CHAIR SHOWER agreed and added that Senator Kawasaki had also
been online. He encouraged the public to submit written
testimony to: senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov and it will be
included in the public record.
4:02:46 PM
CHAIR SHOWER stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080, the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee reviewed the following
and recommends the appointment(s) be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration:
Commissioner, Department of Administration
Kelly Tshibaka - Anchorage
Signing the reports regarding appointments to boards and
commissions in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees; the nominations are merely
forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
4:03:08 PM
at ease
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
4:07:25 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL 34 "An Act relating to probation;
relating to a program allowing probationers to earn credits for
complying with the conditions of probation; relating to early
termination of probation; relating to parole; relating to a
program allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with the
conditions of parole; relating to early termination of parole;
relating to eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to
good time; and providing for an effective date."
He noted that the CS for SB 34, version M, was the working
document. He noted who was available to answer questions, and
that there were amendments for the committee to consider.
4:08:00 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1031\M.5.
31-GS1031\M.5
Radford
2/27/19
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 4, lines 23 - 31:
Delete "[KEEP RECORDS OF THE PROBATION WORK,
INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES THE
PROBATION OFFICER IMPOSES UNDER AS 33.05.020(g), KEEP
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTS OF ALL MONEY COLLECTED
FROM PERSONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICER,
GIVE RECEIPTS FOR MONEY COLLECTED AND MAKE AT LEAST
MONTHLY RETURNS OF IT, MAKE THE REPORTS TO THE COURT
AND THE COMMISSIONER REQUIRED BY THEM, AND PERFORM
OTHER DUTIES THE COURT MAY DIRECT;
(5)]"
Insert "keep records of the probation work [,
INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES THE
PROBATION OFFICER IMPOSES UNDER AS 33.05.020(g)], keep
accurate and complete accounts of all money collected
from persons under the supervision of the officer,
give receipts for money collected and make at least
monthly returns of it, make the reports to the court
and the commissioner required by them, and perform
other duties the court may direct;
(5)"
Page 5, line 2:
Delete "(5) [(6) USE"
Insert "(6) [USE"
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(7)"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "(7)"
Insert "(8)"
Page 5, line 20:
Delete "(8)"
Insert "(9)"
Page 5, lines 24 - 29:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "; and
(5) AS 33.05.040(b), as amended by sec. 7 of
this Act"
Page 14, line 20:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 7"
Page 14, line 21:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 14, line 22:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 11"
Page 14, line 24:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 12"
Page 14, line 25:
Delete "sec. 14"
Insert "sec. 13"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 14, line 27:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 14, line 28:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 14, line 29:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 14, line 30:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 14, line 31:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 15, line 1:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 15, line 2:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
4:08:25 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Senior Policy Advisor, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 restores
bookkeeping functions that were unintentionally omitted from the
CS, and it eliminates administrative sanctions. The rest of the
amendment reflects conforming changes.
4:09:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there were further objections.
SENATOR COGHILL objected to state that he does object to
eliminating administrative sanctions and will speak to that
later. Because he supports the reporting mechanism, he won't
object to the amendment. He removed his objection.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and Amendment 1 passed.
4:10:07 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 2, work order 31-GS1031\M.4.
4:12:03 PM
At ease
4:12:45 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and asked Senator Coghill to
restate the motion.
4:12:52 PM
SENATOR COGHILL restated the motion to adopt Amendment 2,
31-GS1031\M.4.
31-GS1031\M.4
Radford
2/27/19
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 2, line 22, following "imprisoned":
Insert "until the order of the court is
satisfied"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
MR. OGAN explained that this technical amendment adds the phrase
that the order of the court must be satisfied, which the drafter
overlooked.
CHAIR SHOWER clarified that Legislative Legal Services requested
this addition.
MR. OGAN agreed adding that the amendment does not make a
substantive change.
SENATOR COGHILL clarified for the public that this addition
appears on page 2, line 22, of version M.
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and stated that
Amendment 2 has passed.
4:14:13 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 3, work order 31-GS1031\M.6.
31-GS1031\M.6
Radford
2/27/19
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 3, line 19, following "shall":
Insert ", in consultation with the Department of
Law and the Department of Public Safety,"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
4:14:52 PM
MR. OGAN explained that in Section 4, the commissioner
establishes by regulation a program allowing probationers to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation. The
amendment adds the requirement that the regulations are
established in consultation with the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). This provides another set of eyes for the review. He said
the consultation, which could be minimal, is intended to keep
political appointees accountable.
CHAIR SHOWER added that the intent is to ensure coordination
among agencies that enforce the criminal justice system and to
provide checks and balances. In this particular case, there will
be coordination between the commissioner, DOL, and DPS.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested the committee ask the Department of
Law and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) what they think
that consultation would look like.
4:17:03 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
advised that a requirement for consultation does not alter the
ultimate authority for the Department of Corrections to develop
the program. He said the requirement leaves flexibility as to
what that consultation will look like, but it does place into
law that it will occur. He added that it has not been his
experience, but this prevents a situation in which the DOC
develops the policy without talking to anyone else.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the Department of Law was already
working with the Department of Corrections on the development of
regulations.
MR. SKIDMORE said the Department of Law drafts all the
regulations that are developed by departments, but that
consultation is about format rather than substance. He related
his experience that agencies involved in the criminal justice
system frequently consult with the Department of Law about
substance when they're developing regulations. This amendment
requires consultation on substance to occur.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Howell to respond to Senator Coghill's
question.
4:19:46 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Public Safety (DPS), said DPS would work in collaboration
with the Department of Corrections as the amendment requires.
She agreed with Mr. Skidmore that the amendment provides
flexibility for the consultation to occur through whatever
method is most appropriate.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if DPS would have substantive input on not
only the regulations but also the calculation of time on
probation and recommendations to the court.
MS. HOWELL said she couldn't speak for the commissioner as to
how the collaboration would occur, but she believes that the
commissioner of public safety would want to provide input on
proposed changes. She added that the Department of Law, DOC, and
DPS already work closely in these areas and this places the
requirement in statute.
SENATOR COGHILL removed his objection.
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection to Amendment 3.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and stated that
Amendment 3 has passed.
4:22:41 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 4, work order 31-GS1031\M.13.
[Note: This amendment, which was drafted by Legislative Legal,
has paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) inserted under subsection
(i). The copy that committee members considered did not include
paragraphs (3) and (4).]
31-GS1031\M.13
Radford
2/28/19
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 4, lines 7 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(i) A probationer may not be enrolled in the
program established under (h) of this section if the
probationer
(1) is incarcerated for a sex offense as
defined in AS 12.63.100;
(2) is incarcerated for a crime against a
person under AS 11.41;
(3) has three prior convictions arising
from separate criminal episodes; or
(4) has reoffended while on probation in
the past."
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR REINBOLD called a point of order to asked if this was
Amendment 4 or an amendment to Amendment 4.
CHAIR SHOWER clarified that it was Amendment 4; the amendment to
Amendment 4 would be introduced subsequently.
4:23:28 PM
At ease
4:24:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and asked Mr. Ogan to
explain Amendment 4.
4:24:25 PM
MR. OGAN explained that Amendment 4 fixes a drafting error. The
intent is to make probationers convicted of a sex offense or a
crime against a person ineligible for the earned credits
program.
He asked if the chair wanted an explanation of the amendment to
the amendment at this time.
CHAIR SHOWER deferred to more experienced committee members.
4:25:26 PM
SENATOR COGHILL advised that the proper process would be to
adopt Amendment 4 and then consider the amendment to Amendment
4.
4:25:37 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection to Amendment 4.
SENATOR COGHILL moved the amendment to Amendment 4 that reads as
follows:
Amendment to Amendment 4 BY SENATOR SHOWER
CSSB 34(STA) Draft Version "M"
Line 4 after "this section if the probationer" add: or
parolee
Line 5 after (1) is, add: on probation or parole for a
sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100
Line 6 after (2) is, add: on probation or parole for a
felony or DV crime against a person as defined in AS
11.41
4:26:31 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
4:26:44 PM
MR. OGAN explained that the amendment to Amendment 4 adds
parolees who have been convicted of either a sex offense or a
felony or domestic violence crime against a person to the pool
of people who are ineligible for the earned credit program.
CHAIR SHOWER added that AS 33.05.020(h) talks about the
commissioner establishing a program by regulation that allows
probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions
of probation. The intent of the amendment is to exclude from the
credit program those probationers and parolees who have been
convicted of the more serious offenses against a person,
including domestic violence.
4:28:56 PM
SENATOR COGHILL highlighted that later on in subsection (h), on
page 4, line 2 of the bill, it says a probationer convicted of a
crime involving domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990, is
required to complete all treatment programs [required as a
condition probations before discharge based on credits earned
under subsection (h).] He suggested that the proposed amendment
might conflict with the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that after working with legislative legal the
decision was to insert the amendment in this location. He asked
Mr. Ogan if he wanted to expound.
MR. OGAN deferred to the Department of Law.
4:30:04 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said he would recommend two things. First, AS
33.05.020(h) talks about the commissioner establishing by
regulation a program for probationers, not parolees. Therefore,
anything that is done to this statute has to talk about the
program for probationers. A separate statute establishes a
program for parolees. If the intent is to have the policy apply
to both probationers and parolees, anything that is done in the
probation statute needs to be replicated in the parole statute.
Second, Amendment 4, 31-GS1031\M.13, should be amended by
replacing the term "incarcerated" on lines 5 and 6 of the
amendment with "on probation" [because someone on probation is
no longer incarcerated.]
Returning to the first point, he advised that the statute for
parolees is AS 33.16.270. He noted that the bill also amends
that statute, starting in Section 18 on page 11 of the CS. He
said this is where any information about how to restrict who can
be in the earned compliance credit program under the parolee
scenario. He suggested that the likely location for the change
would be on page 12 in paragraph (3). The language would be
similar to the probationer language he suggested but would refer
to a parolee. "If there were different policy objectives than
that, then I would need more time to sort out how you would want
to address that," he said.
CHAIR SHOWER observed that that explains the policy objective,
but the amendment [doesn't achieve that objective.]
SENATOR COGHILL suggested the committee rescind its action to
adopt Amendment 4 and start over.
4:36:13 PM
MR. OGAN said legislative legal suggested articulating the
policy call for the record and giving them express authority to
work the appropriate amendment into the bill.
4:36:56 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to rescind the committee's action on
Amendment 4.
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and the action to adopt
Amendment 4 was rescinded.
4:38:30 PM
CHAIR SHOWER withdrew proposed Amendment 5, work order 31-
GS1031\M.8, from consideration.
4:39:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 6, work order 31-GS1031\M.2.
31-GS1031\M.2
Radford
2/27/19
AMENDMENT 6
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 2, line 28, through page 3, line 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, line 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 14, line 14:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 3"
Page 14, line 15:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 14, line 16:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 14, line 17:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 14, line 20:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 7"
Page 14, line 21:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 14, line 22:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 9"
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 12"
Insert "sec. 11"
Page 14, line 24:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 12"
Page 14, line 25:
Delete "sec. 14"
Insert "sec. 13"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 14, line 27:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 14, line 28:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 14, line 29:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 14, line 30:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 14, line 31:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 15, line 1:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 15, line 2:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the amendment deletes all
material in bill Section 3, which amends AS 12.55.090(g)
regarding probation. This section makes it permissive rather
than directive for a probation officer to recommend that
probation be terminated, and the person discharged from
probation under certain conditions. And it removes the
conditions of having served two years on probation under certain
circumstances and having served 18 months on probation if the
conviction was for a crime that is not a crime under a certain
definition.
SENATOR COGHILL said his intent is to have the probationer's
application go before the board for consideration based on
certain requirements. He said he feels very strongly about this,
but he wasn't sure if this particular amendment was the correct
approach. He said he intended to withdraw the amendment but
wanted to make his wishes known in the hope that members who
have the opportunity to touch the bill two more times will
continue to work with him.
4:41:19 PM
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew Amendment 6, work order 31-GS1031\M.2.
He said he was withdrawing it "with the idea that I think the
requirement demands that the bureaucracy work and the 'may' says
you may work, and it leaves our probation world under two
different people that I struggle with bureaucratically. Not
personally, not integrity wise, just bureaucratically and that
is the people who handle the probation request at the jail and
those who handle it at the board."
4:42:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD called a point of order to say that Amendment 7
replaces the term "shall" with "may."
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that Amendment 6 addresses the
change from "shall" to "may" on page 2, line 29. It's a return
to the language [pre-2016].
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that Amendment 7 changes the term "shall"
to "may" [in regard to parole officer recommendations to the
board].
SENATOR COGHILL continued to say that the data from the
probation and parole office indicates that the people who have
been eligible for probation and parole under these conditions
have been successful and are not reoffending. He reiterated that
he was withdrawing Amendment 6 and would like members to keep
this in mind as they look at and work on different iterations of
the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that Amendment 6, work order 31-GS1031\M.2,
is withdrawn.
4:44:06 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1031\M.3.
31-GS1031\M.3
Radford
2/26/19
AMENDMENT 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 10, line 16:
Delete "may [SHALL]"
Insert "shall"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that Amendment 7 is basically the same
as Amendment 6, but it relates to a parole officer recommending
to the board early discharge for a parolee who has met certain
conditions. The board is not obligated to discharge the parolee,
but it must consider the application.
4:45:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1031\M.3,
and asked members to watch this as the bill moves forward.
4:46:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved Amendment 8, work order 31-GS1031\M.11.
31-GS1031\M.11
Radford
2/28/19
AMENDMENT 8
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSSB 34(STA), Draft Version "M"
Page 7, line 19:
Delete "one-third"
Insert "one-half [ONE-THIRD]"
Page 8, line 25, following "(5)":
Insert "or (8)"
Page 9, line 2, following "(5)":
Insert "or (8)"
Page 9, lines 5 - 12:
Delete "[;
(8) TO A SINGLE SENTENCE UNDER
AS 12.55.125(i)(3) AND (4), AND HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED
BY THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL UNDER AS 12.55.175 TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR DISCRETIONARY PAROLE RELEASE, MAY NOT
BE RELEASED ON DISCRETIONARY PAROLE UNTIL THE PRISONER
HAS SERVED, AFTER A DEDUCTION FOR GOOD TIME EARNED
UNDER AS 33.20.010, ONE-HALF OF THE ACTIVE TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED]"
Insert ";
(8) to a single sentence under
AS 12.55.125(d) for an offense under
AS 11.71.030(a)(1) or (2) [AS 12.55.125(i)(3) AND
(4)], and has not been allowed by the three-judge
panel under AS 12.55.175 to be considered for
discretionary parole release, may not be released on
discretionary parole until the prisoner has served [,
AFTER A DEDUCTION FOR GOOD TIME EARNED UNDER
AS 33.20.010,] one-half of the active term of
imprisonment imposed"
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that Amendment 8 changes the
mandatory minimum term a prisoner must serve to be eligible for
discretionary parole. For class B drug trafficking, a prisoner
would be eligible for discretionary parole after serving one-
half of their sentence rather than one-quarter and for an
unclassified drug offense the change is from one-third of their
sentence to one-half of their sentence. He said he feels that
the state is under a siege of drug-related issues and violent
crimes now, and the data shows that in years past when crime has
been high these are the crimes that contribute to other lower-
level crimes. The message, he said, is that Alaska is not a
preferred market for drug trafficking.
4:47:34 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
4:47:44 PM
SENATOR COGHILL objected to hear the Department of Law discuss
how this new concept might work.
4:48:08 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said this isn't his area of expertise and he would
suggest the committee ask Mr. Edwards from the Board of Parole
to explain. Responding to the chair, he said Senator Micciche
did a good job of describing the amendment to Section 10 that
proposes to change AS 33.16.090(b)(1). It talks about a prisoner
who is eligible under (a)(1) of this section who is sentenced
under the sentencing statute for unclassified felony offenses,
AS 12.55.125(a) and (b), is not eligible for discretionary
parole until they have served the mandatory minimum under this
statute and then one-third of the active term of imprisonment
imposed. Amendment 8 proposes to change the term that must be
served from one-third to one-half. He said he believes that
refers to the active time remaining. He requested that Mr.
Edwards confirm that interpretation.
4:50:27 PM
JEFFREY EDWARDS, Director, State Parole Board, Anchorage, said
Mr. Skidmore and Senator Micciche did a good job of explaining
Amendment 8. The inmate serving the sentence would not be
eligible to apply for early release until they had served a
certain term of the active term of imprisonment imposed.
Currently that is one-third of the active term and the amendment
changes that to one-half. The prisoner would have to serve half
their sentence or the mandatory minimum, whichever is greater
before they could apply to the parole board for release on
discretionary parole.
SENATOR COGHILL said he understands the policy call and he
believes the fiscal note will change. He asked Mr. Skidmore if
mandatory minimums are considered when a prosecutor considers a
plea deal.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that a prosecutor who was considering a
negotiated resolution could look at mandatory minimums to
understand when somebody would be eligible for parole, but he
didn't think it happens very often. He admitted that in 20 years
as a prosecutor, he only focused on the ultimate sentence when
he was trying to determine how to make an offer in the case. He
never looked at when the person was eligible for parole.
SENATOR COGHILL said he brought it up because early release has
become a point of discussion.
4:53:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE reminded the committee that SB 34 removes
several categories of crimes from eligibility for discretionary
parole. The amendment deals with relatively serious crimes and
it increases the minimum time served before a prisoner is
eligible, but they are not removed from the list. He said drug
trafficking destroys the lives of many Alaskans every year and
this is just saying they must serve half their sentence before
they're eligible to apply for discretionary parole. He described
it as a reasonable approach.
4:54:17 PM
MR. OGAN suggested the committee ask Mr. Skidmore how this would
affect a suspended sentence.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the time a court imposes as an
active term of imprisonment is what impacts when somebody is
eligible for discretionary parole. The suspended time is not
calculated for parole; it serves as the potential sanction that
could be imposed when a person on probation violates their
conditions of release.
He continued to say that he talked about the first part of the
amendment that deals with unclassified felonies. The second half
of the amendment talks about when someone convicted of a class B
felony for a drug offense would be eligible for discretionary
parole. That is on page 1, line 21-23 through page 2, line 3 of
Amendment 8, 31-GS1031\M.11. He suggested the committee watch
other bills that have been proposed that may changes AS
12.55.125(d) and AS 11.71.030(a)(1) or (2) to ensure that the
intent of the amendment is preserved. He summarized his
understanding of the intent which is to limit discretionary
parole for those people that are convicted of a class B felony
for a drug offense. He noted that SB 34 already limits
discretionary parole for a class A felony. Amendment 8 deals
with unclassified felonies, class A felonies are already
covered, and this goes to class B felonies for drug
distribution. The clear idea is to limit their eligibility for
discretionary parole until after they have served half the time.
CHAIR SHOWER said that's a salient point.
4:57:47 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Coghill if he wanted to remove his
objection.
SENATOR COGHILL said he didn't mind requiring people to spend
the extra time in jail, but he was not interested in making them
better criminals. He said he'd remove his objection and probably
vote no on the bill.
4:59:00 PM
CHAIR SHOWER stated that Amendment 8 has passed. He said that is
the last amendment and the bill is before the committee for
discussion.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out the bill deletes all the
administrative sanctions as well as limiting discretionary
parole. He said he agrees with earlier comments that the
sanctions were not as swift and certain as everyone hoped, but
he continues to believe there is room to improve that. He
directed attention to page 34 of the 2018 Criminal Justice
Reform Report. He read the following into the record:
Sanctions and incentives. Parole and probation
officers now use a system of administrative sanctions
and incentives to facilitate prompt and effective
responses to compliance with or violations of
conditions of supervision. The administrative
sanctions are used before filing a petition with the
court or the parole board to revoke probation or
parole. [The sanctions are designed to be swift,
certain, and proportionate to the transgression; this
is an evidence-based practice that studies show is
more effective in encouraging course correction.]
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the idea with the probation and
parole reform in 2016 was trying to make sure supervision was on
those who needed it and incentives were given for those who were
successful and didn't reoffend. This report indicates that is
happening; probationers and parolees are held accountable and
are able to earn compliance credits. Because the bill deletes a
lot of that, he said he probably could not support the bill.
5:01:27 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he was looking at that but decided to look at
it in the judiciary committee.
SENATOR COGHILL said he appreciates that, but this is his only
chance to work on the bill.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked the chair for working hard and
diligently on the bill with all the committee members and the
public. She described the amendments as excellent and said she
was pleased to support the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Micciche to read the fiscal notes.
5:02:31 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE warned that the fiscal notes may change as a
result of the amendments that passed today.
Fiscal Note Number 1 from the Criminal Division of the
Department of Law is zero. The allocation is Criminal Justice
Litigation and the OMB Component Number is 2202. It says the
Department of Law anticipates an increase in litigation similar
to what it saw with the passage of the initial criminal justice
reform. However, the department does not anticipate any fiscal
impact from the bill.
Fiscal Note Number 2 from the Department of Corrections,
Population Management, Institution Director's Office, OMB
Component Number 1381 is indeterminant. The reasoning is that
offenders will be incarcerated longer. If the additional inmates
do not exceed capacity, there is no cost to the department. If
the increase exceeds capacity the cost is $168.74 per day per
inmate. The department does not have adequate data to determine
the exact number, thus the note is indeterminate.
Fiscal Note Number 3 from the Department of Corrections,
Population Management, Probation and Parole Director's Office,
OMB Component Number 2684 has an FY20 operating cost of $57,600.
In FY21 it increases to $86,400 and from FY22 to FY25 it is
$172,800 per year in general fund dollars.
Section [4] says that with fewer terminations, offenders will
spend longer on probation at a cost of $9.57 per day per
probationer.
Section 6 reduces the earned compliance credits for probation to
one-third the prior amount.
Section 7 adds the stipulation that probationers who violate
conditions of probation forfeit any credits earned which extends
the period of probation.
Section 16 changes the tolling calculation to what it was prior
to the current law. There is insufficient data to determine that
cost.
Section 18 stipulates that a parolee who violates their
conditions of parole forfeits any credits earned which extends
the period of parole at a cost of $9.57 per day.
Section 20 repeals mandatory early termination of probation
which will probably result in some probationers spending more
time on probation at a cost of $9.57 per day.
Fiscal Note Number 4 from the Alaska Court System is zero. The
Allocation is Trial Courts, and the OMB Component Number is 768.
It says the changes in the bill will not have a fiscal impact on
the Court System.
5:06:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER noted that legislative legal would need to make
conforming changes. He stated his intent to move the bill and
solicited a motion.
5:06:15 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSB 34(STA), 31-GS1031\M, as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSB 34(STA) [amended
version M] was reported from the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee.
5:07:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recessed the meeting until 6:00 pm.
SB 23-APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD
SB 24-PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
6:02:00 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL 23 "An
Act making special appropriations from the earnings reserve
account for the payment of permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date."
and
SENATE BILL 24 "An Act directing the Department of Revenue to
pay dividends to certain eligible individuals; and providing for
an effective date."
He opened public testimony and limited testimony to one minute
due to the high level of interest. He advised that all written
testimony submitted to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov would be
entered into the record. Committee members present were Senator
Reinbold, Senator Micciche, and Chair Shower, and Senator Bishop
was in the audience. He asked all testifiers to be respectful of
the process and in their comments.
6:04:52 PM
DAVID OTNESS, representing self, Cordova, during the hearing on
SB 23 and SB 24, testified that he'd like to see residents come
together as a state before the dividend money is returned.
6:05:42 PM
CHARLES MCKEE, representing self, Anchorage, testified during
the hearing on SB 23 and SB 24 and noted he also submitted
written information.
6:07:10 PM
MIKE PRAX, representing self, Fairbanks, urged the committee to
pass SB 23 and SB 24 with a "must pass" recommendation. He read
AS 43.23.005(a) and said the former administration violated the
peoples' trust by appropriating less than the statutory amount
from the earnings reserve to the dividend fund that Alaskans
were entitled to receive. He opined that Alaskans have a right
to demand payment of the amount that was withheld. The
legislature should honor this debt before considering any other
expenditure, he said.
6:08:42 PM
LARRY CALVIN, representing self, Sitka, testified in opposition
to SB 23 and SB 24. He questioned why the governor wanted to
clean up the swamp of "those swampy things" like education, the
ferry system, swimming pools, and towns. He opined that it was
because he and his well-off associates do not want a state
income tax. He described the PFD payback as a bribe that buys
the vote of people who dearly need the dividend. He recommended
reading "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer and The Corrosion of
Conservationism: Why I Left the Right by Max Boot.
6:10:10 PM
DAVID NOON, representing self, Juneau, stated that while he just
received his 15th PFD as an Alaskan resident, he wanted to add
his voice to those urging the committee not to pass SB 23 and SB
24. "I don't think it's a wise move," he said. He shared how his
family has put the dividends to good use and that he understands
that the PFD is a substantial source of income for many
Alaskans. Reduced PFDs would hit those Alaskans the hardest but
in the long term, reductions in schools, hospitals, senior care
facilities, and ferries will hit the most vulnerable Alaskans
even harder. He urged the committee to look for other solutions.
6:11:35 PM
at ease
6:11:44 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
6:11:55 PM
BRIAN MERRIT, representing self, Wrangell, stated that he
opposes both SB 23 and SB 24, but appreciates the hard work
legislators have done to make Alaska a great state. He related
that he has lived in Alaska for 51 years and taught fourth grade
for 29 years and he would be happy to donate his PFD to keep
education strong and traditional state services alive. He said
he has been a commercial fisherman for 40 years and he wants
Wrangell to continue to receive fishing revenue through tax so
the town can continue to help support community needs. He urged
the committee to work on drafting legislation that sets a
priority for state services first and the PFD second. He
concluded that, "The PFD is a club that is going to mangle
Alaska to the point that Alaskans leave, and nobody will want to
move here."
6:12:55 PM
ROBERT HALL, representing self, MatSu, predicted the failed
outcome of [SB 23 and SB 24] during the regular session and the
likely special session that will follow. He suggested
legislators think now about a resolution that could go before
the people this summer with a package of permanent fund,
revenue, and constitutional amendments and then go to special
session. Responding to a question from the chair, he said he
supports the bills as part of a package.
6:14:20 PM
DONALD WESTLAND, representing self, Ketchikan, stated that he
opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 because the state can afford
neither. He paraphrased the last part of the Declaration of
Rights in art I, sec 1, Constitution of the State of Alaska,
"...that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights,
opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all
persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the
State." He said anybody who is using entitlement programs needs
to help pay for them and passing these bills will place the
state in a position of economic hardship. He shared that given
the opportunity he'd "Pick-Click-Give" his PFD to the ferry
system. For those living in Ketchikan, the ferry is their
highway.
6:15:43 PM
JACK DETZEL, representing self, Delta Junction, stated support
for SB 23 and SB 24. He said it is imperative that the
legislature right the state's financial ship and quit spending
money. He opined that the people who created the permanent fund
would be aghast at the previous administration's activities. He
said Alaskans who elected Governor Dunleavy support these bills
and "there's plenty of opportunity for you to consolidate and
make state services with individual agencies through important
ways to cost-share and things of that nature." He implored the
committee to do the foregoing before taking any more dividends
from the people and to refund all the dividends that were taken
from the people as soon as possible.
6:16:48 PM
DR. SOL NEELY, PhD, representing self and his 8-year-old
daughter, Juneau, said he was speaking in opposition to SB 23
and SB 24. He said he shares Mr. Teal's speculation that the
governor's budget was designed to create political, economic,
and moral chaos. He opined that a budget is a moral document and
this budget promises "moral horror." He described it as dark
ideology sourced by dark money that will destroy the state
economy just when it needs to diversify. He said his family
would happily take thousand dollar dividends or no dividend at
all to support building the state infrastructure, its
institutions, and economy.
6:18:09 PM
JESSE BJORKMAN representing self, Nikiski, stated opposition to
SB 23 and SB 24. He said the people trust the legislature to
govern responsibly and Alaskans need a responsive government
more than a Keynesian cash infusion that will super-heat the
economy, stress depleted state services, and cost jobs when only
half the Alaskans have work. He pointed out that Alaskans rely
on government to manage fish and game, natural resources,
educate kids, and respond to emergencies. During times of budget
shortfall, reserves must be used wisely to deliver
constitutionally mandated services that all Alaskans rely on. He
said the earnings reserve account is intended to be used to
deliver constitutionally mandated services when oil revenue is
low and "a child's ability to read and a citizen's safety from
crime should not rely on the price of a barrel of oil." He urged
the committee not to pass this shortsighted legislation.
6:19:09 PM
STEPHANIE CRONIN representing self, Seward, stated that she is
adamantly opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. She said she and most of
the people she's talked to would gladly give up their PFDs if
that's what it takes to maintain a viable education system. She
described the proposed 25 percent cut to education as
"unthinkable" and that doesn't include the cuts to the ferry
system, the university, [Medicaid], etc. She said she has two
school age children and her family will leave Alaska if the PFD
is fully funded at the expense of her children's educational
opportunity. She has lived in Alaska for 28 years and been a
teacher for 22 years and has received the presidential award for
excellence in math and science teaching, the BP Teacher of the
Year for KPBSD in 2017, and the Alaska State Teacher of the Year
alternate in 2017. She said she has planned to continue teaching
and retire in Alaska, but she will rethink that plan if these
bills pass. Their negative consequences will far outweigh the
benefit, she said.
6:20:16 PM
PATRICK MAYER, Superintendent, Yakutat School District; and
president of both the Alaska Council of School Administrators
and the Alaska Superintendent's Association, Yakutat, stated
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He said the prospect of the state
paying full dividends when it isn't meeting its primary
financial obligation of funding education is unacceptable. He
said the PFD may be important, but it should not be a choice of
funding public education or cutting it by 25 percent to pay for
the dividend. He is a 25 year resident of Alaska and the father
of three voting children who does not see benefit in dismantling
the infrastructure of the state and encouraging citizens to
leave the state.
6:21:23 PM
AMY SWEENEY, representing self, Sitka, stated opposition to SB
23 and SB 24. She said the plan will take money that the
government needs to pay for essential services such as schools
and the state ferry. "I don't want Alaska to become like a
third-world country without adequate schools, transportation
infrastructure and medical care," she said. She said she was
willing to give up her PFD and pay a state income tax to make
money available for government services that everyone needs.
6:22:06 PM
SUE LITMAN representing self, Sitka, stated that she was
vehemently opposed to both SB 23 and SB 24. She said it's
sometimes nice to receive free money, but this isn't one of
those times. The dividend payments the Governor is proposing
will come at the expense of public schools in Alaska. She
pointed out that at the same time that Governor Dunleavy
proposes to give Alaskans free money, he proposes to take back
money already allocated to school districts for FY19. Also, the
FY20 budget has an approximate 25 percent cut to public
education, 41 percent cut to the university and a 75 percent cut
to the ferry system. She said this is shortsighted and will be
an economic disaster for the state.
6:23:54 PM
DAVID BRIGHTON, representing self, Kenai, said he is the father
of three school-age children speaking in opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24. He said it is a serious mistake to pay large dividends at
the expense of state services. He and his wife are talking about
leaving Alaska if the education cuts stand and the norm becomes
40 plus students per classroom.
6:24:15 PM
GHERET ABBOTT, representing self, Ketchikan, said he supports
progressive and honest taxation, so he's opposed to using the
PFD and the permanent fund earnings reserve for revenue until
all other alternatives have been exhausted. He opposes using the
PFD and the earnings reserve for revenue until all other
alternatives have been exhausted. "I therefore urge you to
restore the permanent fund dividend to full, repay all the money
taken from previous dividends, and instead fund all essential
state services through the institution of a progressive income
tax together with higher oil prices," he said.
6:25:22 PM
EARL LACKEY, representing self, MatSu, said he realizes that it
is difficult to cut the budget like the governor has, but it
still makes sense because paying out the dividends will jump-
start the economy and "get things rolling like they should here
in the state." He opined that the budget was cut because the
school system, which is the worst in the nation, needs to be
revamped. "These cuts in the long run will ... make it better
and move forward, so I am definitely for SB 23 and 24," he said.
6:26:28 PM
LUANN MCVEY, representing self, Douglas, said she believes it is
wrong to give out [the PFD] when there is such an economic
shortage. Rather, the focus should be on revenues. She pointed
out that one way to improve the state's economic situation would
be to stop paying oil tax credits, and a way of increasing
income for the state would be to institute a progressive income
tax. She said she believes it is wrong to give out the dividend
now unless it is means-based. She said she values the quality of
life in Alaska, the schools, and the university.
6:27:49 PM
RICHARD STEELE representing self, Douglas, said he's lived here
for 40 years and collected the first PFD that was $1,000. He
used it for a trip to Belize. Both of his daughters and his wife
graduated from the University of Alaska and he received a
teaching certificate from that institution. He asked, "Which is
better, money in my pocket or investment in education? So I say
I oppose both these bills." Instead, use the money for
infrastructure and education, he said.
6:28:43 PM
JANET MCCABE, representing self, Anchorage, stated that she was
speaking in opposition to both SB 23 and SB 24. She pointed out
that economists have made it clear that extra-large dividends
and extreme cuts are destructive to the economic stability and
fiscal well-being of Alaska. She asked the legislature to
instead pass legislation that will provide a modest dividend
based on the percent of market value system and a combination of
broad-based taxes to fill the remaining fiscal gap. "The Alaska
you create now will be a legacy for our children and our
grandchildren," she said.
6:29:42 PM
BONNIE WOLDSTAD, representing self, Fairbanks, stated opposition
to both SB 23 and SB 24. She said when she voted in favor of
establishing the permanent fund, she also voted to set up the
savings account. She asked the legislature to consider moving
the money that was withheld from the dividend into the corpus of
the fund. She pointed out that the PFD was initially capped at
$1,000. She posited that the state structure and state services
have been cannibalized and it was time to stop seeking short-
term personal gain and start looking for long-term benefits for
the state. She thanked the chair for scheduling the hearing when
working people could testify.
6:30:35 PM
SCOTT MACMANUS representing self, Tok, said he is a life-long
Alaskan who has filed for and received every permanent fund
dividend and he is strongly opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. He said
he supports the proper funding of government and the original
intent of the fund to maintain the state's ability to provide an
adequate education and ensure the health and safety of
residents. He reminded members that the fund was created to
replace the nonrenewable resource of oil with the renewable
resource of financial investments. It was not intended to create
an entitlement. He described the bills as wedge issues designed
to turn Alaskans against each other and their backs on
education, senior citizens, those who depend on the PCE [power
cost equalization], or who need the ferry system.
6:31:58 PM
MIKE ILLG, representing self, Homer, said he has a 10-year-old
daughter and is vehemently opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. He
described the promise of a large dividend as a disaster for the
state. Instead, the state needs to ensure there is sufficient
money for public education. He said it will become a public
safety issue if public education is cut 25 percent. "My
testimony is against these two bills," he said.
6:33:01 PM
PATRICK HEUER, representing self, Sitka, he said he has a
daughter in fifth grade. He opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 and
supports funding education and other essential services to avoid
crippling local economies. He encouraged the committee to
explore all options available to safeguard schools and local
communities.
6:33:44 PM
AMY AINSLIE representing self, Sitka, discussed uncertainty
versus certainty in her testimony in opposition to both SB 23
and SB 24. She opined that when resources are scarce, the state
ought to have a high level of certainty about the effects of its
spending. "Anything else is an irresponsible gamble." She said
it is certain that the governor's austere cuts to services will
result in job losses, reduction in services, hinder mobility,
and cripple Alaskan communities. She said it is certain that
everyone will be impacted by the proposed cuts; that sharing in
public services and infrastructure is a more equitable way of
sharing scarce funding than giving extra dividends to people who
do not need it; and that the funds used for the extra PFDs could
be used to offset losses and increase certainty and stability in
communities. It is uncertain, she said, that the extra PFD
dollars would stay in Alaska; would have a significant impact on
employment; would stabilize the housing market; or ensure access
to quality education. She urged the committee to vote against
both bills.
6:35:02 PM
MARIE MCCONNEL representing self, Sterling, said she has been in
Alaska since 1994, has received a dividend since she first
qualified for it, and she opposes both SB 23 and SB 24. She said
passing these bills is analogous to doing well on a diet and
then gaining back all the lost weight plus some. She said these
bills will be devastating after working so hard on the budget
the last three years. She said she accepts a reduced dividend
and having Alaskans share in the cost of services as long as the
budget is close to what it has been the last three years.
6:36:16 PM
LAURA STATTS, representing self, Juneau, said she is a 37 year
resident of Alaska who has worked outside the home in emergency
medicine at the local hospital. She was speaking on her
grandchildren's behalf to urge the committee to vote against SB
23 and SB 24. She said the governor has put Alaskans in an
awkward position by proposing to strip the services that
government should provide. This will cause chaos and an exodus
from Alaska, she said. She closed saying she supports an income
tax and was willing to give up her PFD.
6:37:48 PM
DR. VALERY BROOKS, PhD, representing self, Ketchikan, said she's
been a public school teacher for many years and is urging the
committee to deny passage of SB 23 and SB 24. Her students are
the ones who will be impacted by the budget that cuts 25 percent
from the K-12 school district budgets to make good on a promise
to pay dividend amounts that are neither rational nor well-
advised. She said paying inflated dividends or those supposedly
owed from past years means eliminating the ferry system,
increasing class sizes, and reducing school programs and
positions. "I am not in favor of those permanent fund payments,"
she said. Eliminating the dividend altogether would be a
hardship for many in the state, she said, but failing to use
some permanent fund earnings to offset the budget crisis would
be irresponsible. "It is your duty to provide education funding,
reduce oil tax credits, and fund the state," she said.
6:39:00 PM
LOY THURMAN, representing self, MatSu, stated that he definitely
supports SB 23 and SB 24. He remarked that the testimony has
been overloaded by teachers worried about cuts. He recalled Jay
Hammond saying that the politicians would eventually come after
the money that was specifically designed for the people of the
state to have. That would hurt the poor, the working class, and
the people with kids the most, he said.
6:40:17 PM
BETH FREAD representing self, Homer, described it as
disinformation to say that permanent fund dividends come from
the budget. "They don't." She said you know that the earnings
reserve is dedicated to the legislature and the permanent fund
dividend is dedicated to the people. She said she was "all for"
SB 23 and SB 24 and she entirely supports the governor's budget.
"I have heard he has a red pen and he will use it. And he won't
use it on the permanent fund dividends," she said. She opined
that the legislature does not need any more than the $16 billion
in the earnings reserve. She said it was the billion dollar a
year past leadership that put the state in the current position.
6:41:48 PM
DOUG HERGERT representing self, Wrangell, stated that he was
against many of the cuts in the governor's budget and he blames
it on disappearing federal dollars because of the tax cut that
President Trump signed. He pointed out that the money spent on
senior benefits goes right back into the economies of individual
communities. He expressed frustration about that cut as well as
the cuts to ferries and education.
6:42:53 PM
JIM CHEYDIEUR, representing self, Fairbanks, stated opposition
to SB 23 and SB 24. He said it is the wrong time to take money
that is needed for the government. He said it's necessary to
stabilize the state's income, have broad-based (preferably non-
regressive) taxes, adjust oil taxes, and reduce oil tax credits
from which the state receives no benefit. He opined that the
budget should support children, elders, those who are ill and
disabled, and ordinary services to ordinary citizens. He said
taking money away from those services to restore dividends won't
benefit people. "I can't take my PFD and buy a teacher do I
oppose SB 23 and SB 24," he said.
6:44:00 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self and as president of the Greater
Alaska Chapter of the Association of Mature American Citizens,
Palmer, advised that he would discuss his support of SB 23 and
SB 24 based on the socialist testimony he's heard opposing the
bills and calling for a progressive income tax. He said the
solution is simple. When people fill out their dividend
application they can Pick.Click.Give. all or part of their
dividend back to the state, to education exclusively, or they
could write a personal check to the state for what they deem
fair as a self-imposed tax. If they are concerned about their
fellow Alaskans being in a financial bind, they don't need to
apply for a PFD at all, he said. He said he believes Governor
Hammond did a great thing for Alaskans so they could get full
return on the state resources. He said he'll enjoy that fruit by
spending most of it back into the economy.
6:46:02 PM
HEATHER ASSELIN, representing self, Wasilla, said she
appreciates the effort to reimburse the lost dividends, but she
opposes using the fund's earnings. Also, money for the PFD
should not be paid at the expense or sacrifice of education,
health or wellbeing of Alaska children and families. "To accept
it would feel dirty." She said she is willing to move past the
vetoed funds for the best interest of the state and people.
6:46:48 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB, representing self, Eagle River, asked for
clarification that money that is appropriated for the dividend
would not go to education or other state services if SB 23 and
SB 24 did not pass.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested he send his questions to the committee
email.
MR. EICHENLAUB recommended people use Click.Pick.Give. and give
their dividend to education. He said he supports SB 23 and SB
24.
6:48:27 PM
SIMON GORBATY, representing self, Sitka, said he was speaking in
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He came to Alaska in 2008 and is
excited about starting a life and raising his kids here. He said
that when he looks at these bills and other parts of the budget,
he sees a disaster for communities and the state. He asked the
committee to think about people like himself and try to make it
easier for young people to make a life in Alaska.
CHAIR SHOWER said anyone like Mr. Eichenlaub who has questions
or input should send it to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov.
6:49:42 PM
COLLAUNA MARLEY, representing self, Sitka, said she appreciates
that it is difficult to listen to and represent the diverse
people of Alaska. She called to be heard and to say she is upset
that the exceptional education of her two children might be
replaced with a fat PFD check. "Quality education in our family
is not optional, it is a fundamental need," she said. She noted
that cuts to education aren't new. Reading specialists,
librarians, counselors, teachers, and programs have already been
cut to meet budget demands. She described this budget as a
devastating blow that will cripple small town economies and
education. "Please don't be shortsighted; fight for our kids'
education and our future, not a hefty PFD check," she said.
6:50:53 PM
FRED STURMAN, representing self, Soldotna, stated that the
Governor is doing exactly what he said he was going to do, and a
lot of legislators who were running promised people the PFD. The
Governor said he was going to balance the budget and he's on the
way to do that; he said he was going to close the fishery in
Cook Inlet and that's expected. "People, don't cry about it," he
said.
6:52:12 PM
KARLA HART, representing self, Juneau, said she is a lifelong
Alaskan. She clarified that to the best of her knowledge she and
other testifiers were not working from talking points. "We are
working off of our reality," she said. She said she opposes both
SB 23 and SB 24. Alaska still needs a solid fiscal plan and that
should be a legislative priority. She stated support for an
income tax and a modest dividend. She said in addition to the
concerns that have been expressed, she is very concerned about
cost transfers to local governments. If local governments have
to increase property taxes, that will be reflected in the cost
of living for housing and people won't be made harmless with the
larger dividend. "I think we need to put this money into
government," she said.
6:53:25 PM
DONNA SCHULTZ, representing self, Juneau, said she's received
the dividend for each of the 38 years she's been in Juneau and
would gladly give them up. She opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 and
believes an income tax is needed.
6:54:03 PM
JANALEE GAGE representing self, Ketchikan, said she was not
working from talking points and she opposes both SB 23 and SB
24. She is a sixth generation Alaskan and she remembers the
first PFD. She suggested everyone should read the constitution
and think about who will suffer from the Governor's cuts. She
said it's time as a state to put the income tax question on the
ballot and let the people decide. She said she would gladly give
up her PFD to make sure that essential services are available
now and for future generations.
6:55:30 PM
RAYCE WITTNER, representing self, MatSu, said she does not
support either SB 23 or SB 24. These payments mean possibly
moving out of Alaska and taking her college fund with her. She
questioned how job losses would help the state. She shared that
her mother is in college and works for a nonprofit. They don't
have health care now and she questioned whether they would ever
have it if her mom is unable to find a job. She said, "I may not
be able to vote, but I will be the one providing for your care
in the future." Solutions are tough, she said, but we need to
balance cuts with revenues.
6:56:33 PM
GEORGE PIERCE representing self, Kasilof, urged the committee to
pass SB 23 and SB 24. "We want the PFD payback, all of it," he
said. He said the people own the resources and Governor Dunleavy
was voted into office by the people to give the PFD back. He
suggested cutting wasteful spending in Juneau; he believes cuts
are needed.
6:57:41 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Kodiak, said she opposes SB
23 and SB 24 as currently written. She is proud to call herself
an Alaskan, she agrees with the testimony from Bonnie from
Fairbanks, and she loves the Governor. However, she now realizes
that he bought the state by promising everyone $3,600. She
opined that what he did was illegal.
6:59:07 PM
DAVE AND NOEL MAXWELL, representing self, Palmer, said the
Governor ran on the platform of cleaning the state up and as a
former state employee he can attest that there is a lot of
corruption, even today. Some of this has been corrected but
there is more to be done. Before we take money that has been
obligated to the people in the permanent fund, we should clean
up the state and find efficiencies, he said. Responding to the
chair's question, he said he absolutely supports SB 23 and SB
24.
7:00:32 PM
SCOTT HAYDEN, representing self, Anchorage, said he opposes both
SB 23 and SB 24. It's not a good idea to cut schools, the
university, health care, ferries, elder care, and public media
just to increase the size of the dividend, he said. "You can't
buy a teacher or functioning university with a bigger dividend,"
he said. Please find a way to fund government, even if it means
a small dividend and an income tax.
7:01:16 PM
WILLIAM QUAYLE, representing self, Juneau, said he supports both
SB 23 and SB 24. He uses the dividend for his business, and he
supports a state lottery instead of an income tax. He opined
that the state needs six refineries and $2 gasoline.
7:02:36 PM
RALPH WATKINS, Superintendent, Hoonah City Schools, Hoonah, said
he opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 for the reasons that other
teachers and superintendents have stated. The dividend is
important but not at the sacrifice of education, he said. He
advised that the proposed budget for the Hoonah schools is
$560,000 which is equivalent to the entire teaching budget. The
25 percent cut means no schools in Hoonah, which is
unacceptable, he said.
7:03:28 PM
JOY LYON, representing self, Juneau, said she likes free money,
but she loves Alaska more. It's not worth it if the larger
dividend takes books out of the hands of young children,
shortchanges K-12 students, shutters the local university,
hobbles communities without ferries, and makes the Pioneer Home
unaffordable for elders. She said Alaska is a young state and
she believes it's time to grow up and get an income tax like
most other states.
7:04:32 PM
KYNEDI CLARK, representing self, MatSu, stated that she is a
sixth grade honor roll student who opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She
said her younger sister won't be able to go to preschool and
have the same early start she got. She said this matters because
she tests above the national average. She emphasized that the
claim that Alaska's children are not educated is not true. She
questioned how cutting education will help improve the test
scores of children who aren't as fortunate as herself. Regarding
eligibility, she said sending the backpay out of the state won't
improve the local economy. She's thought about possible
solutions and realizes that legislators have a difficult job.
She asked the committee to, "Please remember that even though
kids are 20 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of
your future."
7:05:38 PM
MARY TONY, representing self, Soldotna, said she voted for the
Governor based on his promise to pay back the PFD. She said it's
the right and responsibility of the government to tax and to
invest in the children of Alaska. She does not support making
payments to oil companies. She said after the dividend backpay
she would be open to stopping the PFD if it's necessary. Listen
to the people, she said.
7:06:52 PM
MATH TRAFTON, representing self, Sitka, said he is strongly
opposed to both SB 23 and SB 24. He is gravely concerned about
the Governor's proposed budget cuts and scared for the fishing
industry, seniors, ferries, hospitals, schools, and the
university system. People with the least financial resources
will be hurt the most, he said. More money in each citizen's
pocket seems like a good idea, he said, but not at the expense
proposed. He said regardless of the original plans for the PFD,
it's time to adapt. He urged the committee to find a way to put
money into critical state funds to avoid the worst financial
crisis the state has ever seen. He said he would be willing to
sacrifice the PFD and pay income tax if it means getting the
state back on track without devastating essential state
services.
7:07:53 PM
ZOE TRAFTON, representing self, Seward, Alaska, stated that she
is in 7th grade, enjoys school a lot, and is opposed to
additional PFD payouts. She and her friends enjoy their
electives, band in particular. She shared that a favorite part
of her day is the elective robotics class. She highlighted that
with the budget cuts to education, important electives such as
art, woodshop, and band may disappear. Because music plays such
a vital role in Sitka, cutting band would impact many. She said
electives are important and teach students valuable skills. She
said she opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 and would be willing to
give her PFD equivalent to schools to help keep them running
smoothly.
CHAIR SHOWER advised that individuals have the option to return
their dividends to the general fund.
7:09:01 PM
MARY JANE "MJ" LEGRANDE, representing self, Juneau, stated that
three of her four children and one grandchild reside in Juneau.
She opposes SB 23 and SB 24 because they serve individuals and
not community needs or the future of the state. She asked the
committee to take care of the state, not individuals.
7:10:01 PM
KATIE PITTMAN, representing self, Juneau, said she has been a
teacher in Barrow and the Aleutians and has seen the impact that
budget decisions have on communities around the state. She
voiced support for looking at other sources of income to make it
possible to continue to offer these services.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if she supports or opposes SB 23 or SB
24.
MS. PITTMAN replied she opposes both bills.
7:11:41 PM
MELODY JORDAN, representing self, Seward, stated that she is
adamantly opposed to SB 23 and SB 24 and the entire budget as
currently proposed. She said her daughter and nieces and nephews
have attended the public school system and she believes that
public education should always be a priority. She emphasized
that there should not be a PFD payback at the expense of
education and other necessary services. The cost is too great,
she said. Another cost that is not being considered, she said,
is the cost of so many Alaskans who are choosing to leave the
state.
7:12:39 PM
ED MARTIN JR. representing self, Coopers Landing, said his
family has been in Alaska since before statehood. He and his
children have received the dividend and he supports both SB 23
and SB 24. He pointed out that the state is living on a three-
legged stool and it is time to build a fourth leg. The only way
to do this, he said, is if the people have money in their
pockets and land to build on. He reminded the members who had
voiced support for the payback to carry through and support the
bills. He highlighted the 83 percent support in 1999 for
maintaining the dividend and urged the committee to do the right
thing.
7:14:02 PM
GLENN CRAVEZ, representing self, Anchorage, voiced opposition to
SB 23 and SB 24. He said free money is wonderful but not at the
expense of public education, public safety, health care, and
transportation. These essential public services should not be
sacrificed. He reiterated his opposition to both bills.
7:15:00 PM
KAREN CORBEL, representing self, Homer, stated that PFDs often
helped provide the basic needs of her family of seven. She was
proud to receive her teaching degree in 2012 from the University
of Alaska and she currently teaches fifth grade at Anchor Point.
She hopes to continue. She opined that PFDs are important, but
it should not be a choice of either public education or PFDs and
a 25 percent cut to education. She emphasized that lives are
being profoundly affected and real people want realistic
solutions, not reactions. She agreed with the sixth grader who
pointed out that children today are 100 percent of the future.
She asked the committee to place her on record as a 38-year
Alaska resident who opposes both SB 23 and SB 24.
7:16:13 PM
KARI SAGEL, representing self, Sitka, said she is a teacher
speaking in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She said she would
like to apply the money toward her bills but not at the expense
of early childhood education. She favors using the PFD to help
balance the budget and she supports a progressive income tax.
She said she wanted to use the balance of her allotted time to
complete Mr. Calvin's testimony. He said there is no place
better to live than Sitka. Everyone in Alaska feels that way
about their community and state and the proposed legislation
will not achieve a better future for our children.
7:17:31 PM
KATE JOHNSON, representing self, Sitka, stated opposition to SB
23 and SB 24. She reported that she graduated from UAA with a
degree in early childhood education and is teaching preschool.
Her children benefit greatly from the outstanding Sitka schools
where the phenomenal teachers support their academic learning,
music, and art. Some of these teachers, health care providers,
fishermen, and others are putting their houses on the market and
considering leaving the state. She said living in Alaska is
expensive and it is beneficial to receive the PFD, but the
payments will bring just short-term benefit. The long-term
consequences will drive people out of the state. She voiced
support for education, health care, social services, public
radio, the Pioneer Home, the Alaska State Highway, and other
state services. I want my money to go to these places to help
make Alaska the place we want to call home, she said.
7:18:39 PM
HARVEY BRANDT, representing self, Sitka, stated that his
children and grandchildren were raised and educated in Sitka and
are all very successful. He said he is vehemently opposed to SB
23 and SB 24 and would like the talk about Alaska being broke to
stop because it's a myth. The state has $65 billion in the
permanent fund and that fund was not created to just pay checks
to Alaskans. He asked that the resource be reserved for
education, the ferry system, hospitals and other essential
services.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that Senator Costello joined the committee.
7:20:15 PM
RANDY VIRGIN, representing self, Anchorage, said he's upset that
the Governor has created the false choice between receiving the
PFD payback and state services. That should not have to be the
choice, he said. He agreed with previous testimony that there is
enough money to payback the PFD and balance the budget. He said
he didn't want to take a position on the bills because it's in
the context of the budget that there is so much opposition to.
7:21:35 PM
LILI SANTORO, representing self, her husband, and her daughter,
Anchorage, stated opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She described
the Governor's campaign promise regarding the PFD as a bribe to
buy Alaskans' votes while he planned to gut education, health
care, transportation, and ultimately jobs. She said this is a
diversion technique that serves the purpose of distracting
attention from the big money paid out in oil tax credits and
out-of-state no-bid contracts. She said her family would gladly
give up their PFD to see the state prosper. She asked the
Governor to lead by example.
7:22:37 PM
KIM NELSON, representing self, Fairbanks, said he is definitely
in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He believes in the Governor's
budget and taxes. He observed that the testimony appears to be
one sided and he hopes that people who support the payback can
make their views clear.
7:23:36 PM
BETH HACK, representing self, Soldotna, said she is a 49 year
resident of Alaska who supports SB 23 and SB 24. She said the
dividends go right back into the local economy and help people
pay their utilities. She maintained that the money is legally
the peoples' and they were meant to have it. People who do not
support the payback can opt for Pick.Click.Give.
7:24:43 PM
GLEN BUTTS, representing self, Big Lake, stated support for SB
23 and SB 24. He said the PFD is in exchange for mineral rights
that Alaskans do not receive. The money was supposed to be put
into a separate fund for the people and it muddies the waters to
say it should be used for education, he said. "I'd really like
my money back so I'm definitely for the bills."
7:25:54 PM
LYNETTE CLARK, representing self, Fox, said she has lived in
Alaska since 1951 and has followed the permanent fund from the
beginning. She said the earnings reserve account has over $16
[billion] and the government has a $5.25 [billion] draw on it to
pay for government programs. It's restitution time, she said
7:27:14 PM
MARGO O'CONNEL, representing self, Sitka, said she is speaking
today because she opposes the Governor's budget and SB 23 and SB
24. She was born and raise in Sitka and has benefited from the
resources available in the community, many of which are
supported by the state. She opined that the goal of each
generation should be to make sure that the next generation is
better off than the last. She posited that if this budget
passes, young people won't have money to move to Alaska and
locals won't be able to stay. The educational opportunities
won't be the same, there will be fewer jobs, the cost of living
will be higher, and fishing communities will be devastated.
Without the Alaska Marine Highway System, communities will be
isolated from the rest of the state. She concluded her comments
saying she supports having a balanced budget but cutting
services that benefit everyone is not the way to achieve that
goal.
7:28:19 PM
ANGELA BOWERS, representing self, Sitka, said she was speaking
as a concerned citizen in opposition to both SB 23 and SB 24.
She shared that she is a mother and faculty member at UAS and
that her family would benefit from the supplemental PFD.
However, the extra money is not worth the tradeoff of having
large class sizes, no more raw fish taxes for the community,
less money for Medicaid, and a gutted university system. She
opined that the proposed cuts will ultimately cost residents
more than the supplemental payments. She said strong schools,
great communities, health care, and post-secondary education
opportunities will sway people to stay in Alaska, not the extra
$3,000. She asked the committee to instead allocate the
supplemental PFD money to essential services that communities
need for a strong future.
7:29:33 PM
STEVE WASHBURN, representing self, Kenai, stated that he is a 63
year resident of Alaska who supports SB 23 and SB 24. "It's
something that we all need back," he said.
7:30:27 PM
KIM HAYES, representing self, Anchorage, stated strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She is a lifelong Alaskan with
kids in the public school system. She shared that she was
calling while attending her daughters public school science
fair, which demonstrates how important she and her family see
this issue. She said that the bills create the false notion that
the only options are supersized PFDs or gutted essential state
services. Instead, she supports a reasonable dividend and a real
plan that keeps Alaska open for business.
7:31:20 PM
MICHAEL BOWLES, representing self, Palmer, stated that he
supports both SB 23 and SB 24. He offered his understanding that
the PFD replaces the peoples' landowner mineral rights. He
suggested that if these bills fail, legislation should be passed
giving the PFD to only those that own land in Alaska and a
payout system based on the number of years the land has been
owned. The PFD is money owed to Alaska landowners for giving up
their mineral rights, not to fund government, he said. He
suggested that people who want the PFD to go toward education
should earmark their dividend checks for their children's
education.
7:32:37 PM
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, Fairbanks, said she is an Alaska
Native and single mother who opposes both SB 23 and SB 24. She
depends on many of the state social programs, education in
particular, for her children and herself. As a UAF student, she
is trying to better her life and ultimately pay back into the
system and help future single mothers.
7:33:31 PM
MICHAEL MAUSBACK, representing self, Sitka, said he opposes SB
23 and SB 24. He shared that he is an educational professional
who is neither a socialist nor talking point scripted. He is
concerned that the plan the Governor has proposed will eliminate
jobs, increase the cost of living, and put the state at risk of
a brain drain. He opined that many Alaskans will vote with their
feet if vital services are cut. He expressed hope that the
legislature would reject the PFD payout and instead reallocate
the money towards pre-K and K-12 education, the university
system, public broadcasting, the Alaska Marine Highway, pioneer
homes, and other state-supported community services. "The
Governor's plan will devastate the economy and this apocalyptic
budget is a threat to our children, businesses, schools, elders,
and environment," he said. He said he supports a balanced
budget, but the proposed plan is unsustainable. He added that he
supports either a reduced or an eliminated PFD.
7:34:44 PM
MARK SPRINGER, representing self, Bethel, said he has been an
Alaska resident since 1976 and received the first dividend. He
described SB 23 and SB 24 as an attempt by the Governor to
coerce Alaskans into forgoing vital state services. He said
we're smarter than that and listed the services he supports
including, WWAMI where Alaska gets its doctors, public media
because the Internet doesn't carry basketball games called in
Yupik, Mount Edgecombe High School and its pool, and power cost
equalization. He said he also supports a state income tax.
7:35:28 PM
MERRIE CULP-WASHBURN, representing self, Kenai, stated support
for SB 23 and SB 24. She said this is fair; "We're happy to give
our dividends away, but we want to do it ourselves."
7:36:25 PM
CHARLIE PIERCE, representing self, Kenai, reminded elected
officials that the Governor was elected on the platform of
getting expenditures in line with revenues and supporting the
statutory requirements for the permanent fund. He said he
supports SB 23 and SB 24 and hopes that legislators will keep
the voice of the people in the last election in mind as they
vote.
7:37:29 PM
JEANINE BROOKS, representing self, Sitka, said she is a school
social worker speaking in firm opposition to SB 23 and SB 24.
She encouraged the committee to think about the long-term effect
that cutting essential services will have on the health of the
state. She said the dividend isn't always good for the young
people in the state who are too young to vote. Her office is
often filled with traumatized kids when the dividend comes out
in October because people are using their dividends on alcohol
and drugs, not groceries or fuel. This is hurting families and
kids. She reiterated her opposition to the bills.
7:38:31 PM
RICK MOORE, representing self, Soldotna, stated support for SB
23 and SB 24. He said the government needs to stop spending more
money than it has. He supports the Governor and the proposed
budget and believes that the spending on education is yielding
little to nothing. He pointed out that the university is losing
accreditation yet is asking for more money. He said it's okay
with him to cut the PFD, but mineral rights should be returned
to the people. He acknowledged that the PFD helps local
economies. He maintained that teachers who oppose the bills are
simply trying to protect their jobs.
7:40:21 PM
CARL CLARK, representing self and his wife, Homer, stated
support for SB 23 and SB 24. He said Alaskans receive the PFD
because Alaska property owners do not have mineral rights. He
advised that education is funded through a separate fund, and
having home schooled their children he knows that it does not
take $18,000 per child per year. "It's what you do in school,
not where you do it," he said. He reiterated support for the
bills.
7:41:50 PM
JOE MONTAGNA, representing self, Sitka, stated that he is a
proud parent, teacher, and resident of Sitka who is speaking in
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24 and thus in support of his
students who are the future of the state. He doesn't count on
the dividend and will get a second job before he counts on that
extra money. However, he will work extra hours to provide for
his students and ensure that classes are not overcrowded, and
kids don't fall through the cracks. These students are the
future and need to be served well by keeping money in education.
7:43:00 PM
DEB SCHULTZ, representing self, Chugiak, stated that she is
opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. She has received every dividend
since the beginning, but she does not support un-sustained draws
from the permanent fund. Quality schools are much more important
than a dividend. "Please protect the fund and the dividend for
our grandchildren and their grandchildren," she said.
7:43:54 PM
OLE CHRISTENSON, representing self, Fairbanks, stated support
for SB 23 and SB 24. He suggested everyone keep in mind that
legalizing marijuana amounted to a modern day gold rush. It is
generating enough money to support anything the government wants
to do. Thus the state should return his and his neighbors' money
and "get away from the three [men] on a shovel syndrome."
7:44:44 PM
MICHAEL TAVOLIERO, representing self, Eagle River, stated
support for SB 23 and SB 24. He opined that the people's money
should be returned.
7:45:18 PM
JOSEPH CAYABYAB, representing self, Seward, stated support for
SB 23 and SB 24. He said it is the people's money and he
supports the Governor's initiative.
7:45:53 PM
DIANE HOLMES, representing self, Anchorage, shared that Jay
Hammond told her that he never expected to give with one hand
and take with the other. She said legislators don't need to be
reminded that it is the government's job to provide adequate
services. She pointed out that the people who need the PFD may
also need Medicaid, education, ferry service, and public radio
and TV. She said the PFD should not be constitutionalized unless
the legislature's crystal ball tells how many prisoners will
need to be fed and students will need to be educated. "You know
that we cannot cut our way out of this crisis so don't kick the
can down the road anymore." She suggested legislators initiate
an income tax and perhaps a one-half percent statewide sales tax
on purchases up to $1,000.
7:47:16 PM
JENNIFER REED, representing self, Sitka, asked the committee to
reject SB 23 and SB 24. She shared that she is a third-
generation Alaskan, a public school teacher, and a member of the
working middle class who does not support the Governor's
proposed budget. She said she and her family have benefited from
the PFD, but she does not support taking money from reserves to
put money in people's pockets. She requested the PFD money be
used to fund education and essential services.
7:48:15 PM
JANICE CHANDLER, representing self, Kasilof, said she is a
senior citizen who depends on the PFD to pay her land taxes,
maintenance on her car, and heat in the winter. Thus she
supports SB 23 and SB 24.
7:48:54 PM
FORREST KUIPER, representing self, Seward, stated strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He said he is a lifelong Alaskan
who wants to spend the rest of his life here, but the budget
cuts are causing he and his wife to rethink those plans. Their
daughter is in kindergarten and the cuts to education are
unacceptable. Paying a supersized PFD and then cutting K-12 25
percent, the University of Alaska 41 percent, and the Alaska
Marine Highway 75 percent does not provide a sustainable future.
He urged the committee to make the right decision and oppose the
bill.
7:50:12 PM
BRENDON HOPKINS, representing self, Sterling, stated support for
SB 23 and SB 24. Acknowledging that the budget is a separate
issue, he pointed out that state spending over the last two
decades has outpaced inflation and population growth. The
proposed cuts should be viewed in that light, he said.
7:51:49 PM
HAROLD BORBRIDGE, representing self, Anchorage, testified in
support of SB 23 and SB 24. He cited an ISER report and
extrapolated that taking the PFD is equivalent to the loss of
18,000 to 20,000 private sector jobs. He also pointed out that
the most vulnerable Alaskans would be most affected by the loss
of the PFD.
7:53:49 PM
GRACE BROOKS, representing self, Sitka, stated strong opposition
to SB 23 and SB 24. She said everyone benefits more from state
services that a big PFD. The Governor's proposed budget will
destroy education, public media, the ferry system, and health
care, among others. This is short sighted and will not maintain
viable communities. She stated support for an income tax to
maintain essential services. She clarified that she is not an
educator and has no children in the school system, but she knows
that children are the future. She urged the committee to vote
against the bills.
7:54:42 PM
LINDA SCHANDELMEIER, representing self, Fairbanks, said she is a
lifelong Alaskan who paid a state income tax in the past and she
opposes both SB 23 and SB 24 and the Governor's proposed budget.
The PFD should not be paid at the expense of essential services
such as education. She said she is particularly worried about
the 41 percent cut to the university system. This is not the
right approach, she said.
7:55:42 PM
SUZANNE DUTSON, representing self, Juneau, stated that she
opposes SB 23 and SB 24 and the Governor's defense of the "high
speed dive to the bottom of the oil barrel budget proposal." She
is the mother of two adult children who were educated in Alaska.
One daughter is a preschool teacher and the existing funding
deficiencies have resulted in a two-year waitlist at that
preschool. She said kids need school more than PFDs and her
grandson's mother is considering leaving the state because the
educational opportunities are becoming more limited. She too
will leave and take her considerable retirement with her. "We
cannot keep using the PFD as a political bargaining chip," she
said.
7:57:06 PM
MORRIS NASSUK, representing self and his kids, Koyuk, said he's
a Native who has lived in Koyuk his entire life and he supports
both SB 23 and SB 24. The economy in his area isn't very good
and his family has depended on the dividend from the start. He
talked about the relatively small tax that oil companies pay. He
offered his perspective that education and teachers have done
little to help people in rural Alaska.
7:58:45 PM
GREG WEIBER, representing self, MatSu, reminded everyone that
the Governor was overwhelmingly elected just like Donald Trump.
He looks forward to seeing Mr. Dunleavy turn Alaska on its ear
just as Mr. Trump has done in Washington, DC. His preference is
to have a constant amount in the dividend and is very happy with
the proposed budget. He supports getting rid of dead weight and
unnecessary jobs and holding oil companies responsible.
8:00:01 PM
KATHERINE PRUSSIAN, representing self, Sitka, said she is the
parent of two future voters, and she works in natural resources,
not education. She opposes SB 23 and SB 24 and has received the
dividend from the start. She has loved receiving the dividend
and would love receiving many more, but not at the expense of
state services. She emphasized that no one deserves the
dividend, but everyone deserves safe places to live, access
between communities, and quality public education. She supports
using permanent fund earnings to support state services, but not
the PFD payback. She encouraged the committee to think outside
of the box and consider income taxes and increased education
funding.
8:01:20 PM
DALTON STOKES, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in support of
SB 23 and SB 24. He maintained that teachers don't understand
that wealth has to be produced, he called people who read their
testimony fake, and he emphasized that the dividend is not
welfare. He said there are a lot of things he can't say over the
teleconference, but he will say them on the Eddie Burke Show
tomorrow.
8:02:42 PM
CHARLES LESTER, representing self, Delta Junction, said he
definitely supports SB 23 and SB 24 and is behind the Governor
and his budget proposal. He has lived in Alaska since 1973 and
plans to spend the rest of his life in the state. He and his
very large family are doing well in the Delta area and they
support the budget cuts. It's time to stop kicking the can down
the road, he said.
8:04:00 PM
BERT HOUGHGALING, representing self, Big Lake, pointed out that
the university was designed to fund itself and the K-12 system
has a budget that is three times higher than states with the
equivalent population. Rethink how schools are done and start
doing more online. "Lets eliminate these overhead and high costs
in areas that are doing nothing but surviving off of
government's money." He said he supports SB 23 and SB 24 100
percent and returning the POMV to the constitutional formula.
8:05:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER apologized to the people that were not able to
testify tonight and advised that there would be an opportunity
to testify next Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:00 to 8:00
pm. There is also the option to send in written testimony.
[SB 23 and SB 24 were held in committee.]
8:06:28 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 8:06 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA (AutoRecovered).pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Agenda |
| Commissioner Tshibaka Resume.pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
comm tshibaka resume |
| Letters of Rec-Comm Tshibaka Assorted.pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Assorted letters of rec - comm tshibaka |
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| M.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 SB 34 Version m sb34 version m |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-1-2-012319-LAW-N.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-2-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-3-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB34-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 34 Support Crime Bills AACOP.pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 - PSEA Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB34 Updated Amendments 02-28-19.pdf |
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |