02/15/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB88 | |
| SCR2 | |
| Eo 113 | |
| SB72 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2005
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to the policy of the state regarding the source
of funding used to cover a shortfall in general fund revenue."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proclaiming 2005 as Rotary International Year.
MOVED SCR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 72
"An Act relating to the authority to take oaths, affirmations,
and acknowledgments in the state, to notarizations, to
verifications, to acknowledgments, to fees for issuing
certificates with the seal of the state affixed, and to notaries
public; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
EXECUTIVE ORDER 113
Relating to the Telecommunications Information Council
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE: POLICY ON GENERAL FUND REVENUE SHORTFALL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WILKEN
02/02/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (S) STA, FIN
02/15/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SCR 2
SHORT TITLE: ROTARY INTERNATIONAL YEAR 2005
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS G
02/07/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/05 (S) STA
02/15/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE: OATHS; NOTARIES PUBLIC; STATE SEAL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (S) STA, L&C
02/15/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: EO 113
SHORT TITLE: Relating to TIC
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Gary Wilken
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 88
Melanie Lesh
Staff to Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SCR 2
Craig Dahl
Assistant District Governor
Rotary District 501
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 2
Kevin Brooks
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced EO 113
Kevin Jardell
Legislative Director for Governor Murkowski
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained aspects of EO 113
Pam Varni
Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed conflicts associated with EO 113
Curtis Clothier
Data Processing Manager
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed conflicts associated with EO 113
Annette Kreitzer
Chief of Staff to Lt. Governor Loren Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 72
Scott Clark
Notary Commission Administrator
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 72
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:34:39 PM. Present were Senators
Elton, Huggins, Wagoner, and Chair Therriault.
SB 88-POLICY ON GENERAL FUND REVENUE SHORTFALL
3:34:39 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced the first order of business to come
before the committee was SB 88. He asked Senator Wilken to come
forward and give an overview.
3:35:56 PM
SENATOR GARY WILKEN, sponsor of SB 88, explained he would give a
power point presentation that would include the historical view
of the fiscal situation and a suggestion on how to fund revenue
shortfalls. "There's no question in my mind... that we have a
structural deficit in our general fund spending in this state."
The following highlights the presentation, "A Bridge to
Development."
3:37:16 PM
Slide 2 - AS 37.07.010 provides procedures for covering
projected shortfalls by appropriating equally from the
Constitutional Budget Reserve and the Earnings Reserve Account.
3:37:36 PM
Slide 3 shows FY 06 Operating & Capital Budgets - $7.6 billion
The budget is comprised of 33 percent federal funds, about 20
percent Permanent Fund spending, and 34 percent general fund
spending, which is the "home of the fiscal gap." Historically,
between 68 and 90 percent of general fund revenues have come
from oil and gas tax revenues.
3:38:57 PM
Slide 4 shows a bar chart indicating, "General fund revenue can
be less than general fund expenditures."
3:40:13 PM
Slide 5 shows the relationship between the price of oil per
barrel and the unrestricted general fund revenue. If oil were at
$25 per barrel there is a fiscal gap in FY 06, but there would
be a small surplus at $50 per barrel.
3:41:59 PM
Slide 6 - In 1990 voters approved an amendment to Article IX to
establish the Budget Reserve Fund (CBR) to fill a fiscal gap.
3:42:36 PM
Slide 7 indicates a chart from FY 94 - when the CBR was first
tapped - to FY 05.
3:43:48 PM
Slide 8 indicates Alaska is a resource state.
3:44:18 PM
Slide 9 indicates a bridge is needed until potential future oil
and gas revenues are developed.
3:45:06 PM
Slide 10 shows seven ways to bridge the gap. Using the earnings
reserve from the Permanent Fund is the seventh way.
3:46:06 PM
Slide 11 shows why continuing to rely solely on the CBR isn't
feasible.
3:46:46 PM
Slide 12 suggests splitting future fiscal gaps between the CBR
and Permanent Fund earnings reserve - SB 88.
3:47:13 PM
Slide 14 asks whether we can use the Permanent Fund earnings
reserve.
3:47:58 PM
Slide 15 indicates Alaska Permanent Fund history and projections
spreadsheet.
3:49:27 PM
Slide 16 indicates that there is a difference between the Alaska
Permanent Fund principal and the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA).
3:51:06 PM
Slide 17 indicates Alaska's Crown Jewels are the CBR and the
ERA.
3:53:03 PM
Slide 18 addresses what would happen to a person's Permanent
Fund check if the ERA were used.
3:55:21 PM
SENATOR KIM ELTON questioned whether the chart indicates the
impact per check per year or the cumulative impact for years two
and beyond.
SENATOR WILKEN said it's cumulative.
CHAIR THERRIAULT clarified that if $250 million were withdrawn
from the ERA for five years running, the cumulative impact would
be $30 total and not $30 per year.
SENATOR WILKEN agreed.
3:56:57 PM
Slide 19 will be reworked given the previous discussion.
3:57:35 PM
Slide 20 compares alternative revenue sources.
3:58:54 PM
Slide 21 indicates the cumulative cost to a family of four over
time.
3:59:55 PM
Slide 22 questions whether this helps the CBR.
4:00:33 PM
Slide 23 - SB 88 demands spending accountability.
4:03:05 PM
Slides 24 and 25 offer a summary.
4:04:44 PM
SENATOR WILKEN said he was available to answer questions.
4:04:55 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that Senator Elton had to step out for a
sub-committee meeting.
He asked Senator Wilken whether the bill is necessary since the
Legislature can access the ERA with a simple majority vote and
the CBR with a three quarters vote.
4:05:49 PM
SENATOR WILKEN agreed that the policy could be ignored, but it's
worthwhile talking about the future when times are good, he
asserted.
CHAIR THERRIAULT commented that earlier today he was asked
whether the Legislature was working on the fiscal issue and he
referenced SB 88, the POMV, and other plans. He noted that SB
88 was initiated last year and he was curious what kind of
questions Senator Wilken fielded in the interim.
SENATOR WILKEN replied he found the concept was surprisingly
well received. Touching the ERA wasn't treated as the third rail
issue as it had been previously.
4:10:42 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT brought up unintended consequences and noted
that although the three quarters vote on the CBR was a mechanism
to keep spending down, it hasn't in fact worked that way. Have
you thought about the potential downside, he asked
SENATOR WILKEN replied it depends on the stock market to a great
extent. From a political standpoint he admitted he's never been
a fan of the CBR. Just as the "Halford decision" changed the
original concept of the CBR, the CBR changed the budget process.
But, he remarked, the Minority are still players in the budget
process because of the CBR.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said the issue of low oil prices and a bear
stock market would constrain the money you have, but it would
self correct. "It's not like you would be able to get access to
additional earnings that are not there," he said.
SENATOR WILKEN replied that could and did happen in 1999.
4:15:06 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the Permanent Fund has rebounded to over
$30 billion.
SENATOR WAGONER pointed out there isn't a loss until you sell,
but the thing he doesn't like about SB 88 is it doesn't negate
the ability of the Minority using the CBR to increase the
expenditure on the budget each year. He said he would like to
eliminate the CBR and never have to deal with the three-quarter
vote.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he doesn't necessarily support the concept,
but is pleased that the conversation is started. He said his
primary concern is that over time the default might be an income
tax.
SENATOR WILKEN said some characterize his proposal as a raid on
the Permanent Fund, but he's ready to fight through that
argument to focus on the earnings.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked whether he had any additional information
to highlight.
SENATOR WILKEN announced the new plan would be on his web site
by the end of the week and he was willing to talk about it in
any venue.
4:20:54 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he would hold SB 88 in committee.
CHAIR THERRIAULT called a short break.
SCR 2-ROTARY INTERNATIONAL YEAR 2005
4:28:23 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced SCR 2 to be up for consideration.
MELANIE LESH, staff to bill sponsor, Senator Gary Stevens,
explained the resolution proclaims 2005 as "Rotary International
Year" and Mr. Dahl could speak to the resolution.
CRAIG DAHL, assistant district governor for Rotary district
5010, thanked members of the Senate for acknowledging 100 years
of service by Rotary International. District 5010 has more than
2,600 members and includes Eastern Russia, the Yukon, and
Alaska. It's the most unique district in the world and is used
as a model for programs such as foundation fundraising and the
youth exchange program.
4:30:53 PM
During the centennial year tremendous effort will go into a
variety of projects that focus on youth and a variety of service
programs. One highlight would be the joint effort with the
Rasmussen Foundation to construct a teen center in Anchorage and
another would be the Centennial Bridge in Whitehorse. Most
community service projects target youth and the scholarships
raised throughout the state target youth as well, he said.
He reiterated thanks for acknowledging 100 years of Rotary
service.
SENATOR WAGONER asked Mr. Dahl to talk about Interact Clubs.
MR. DAHL explained that Interact Clubs at the high school level
and Rotaract Clubs at the university level work with Rotary
Clubs to learn about the "service above self" and community
service concepts. The clubs prepare youths to become good
Rotarians when they get older.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked about the level of participation in
Alaska.
MR. DAHL said Rotary is growing and the ideal that a group of
professional adults are focused on community service is a strong
bond and motivating tool. The spirit of living in Alaska
typifies the spirit of Rotary, he said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked how many Alaskans participate in the
exchange program.
MR. DAHL said the 35 clubs in Alaska are sending out 41 exchange
students this year and basically for each student that is sent
out, one student is brought in.
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked youth exchange is a great part of
Rotary.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS stated that the exchange program is a
tremendous program for international relations.
MR. DAHL said it's very exciting to see over 100 students who
have shared or are preparing to share an international
experience.
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether outbound students ever
expressed concern about losing the PFD.
MR. DAHL said no.
CHAIR THERRIAULT stated he had no concerns regarding language in
the resolution.
4:38:48 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to move SCR 2 from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
4:39:27 PM
^EO 113
EO 113 Relating to TICs
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT asked Kevin Brooks to present EO 113.
4:39:54 PM
KEVIN BROOKS, deputy director, Department of Administration,
stated that EO 113 would transfer TIC [Telecommunications
Information Council] authorities that are in current statute to
the Department of Administration. This is clean up action, he
said. The TIC was established in the late 1980s so that
government could address telecommunication issues in an orderly
fashion.
The council is housed in the Office of the Governor and is
comprised of the commissioner from each department, a legislator
from each body, the president of the University of Alaska, and
the executive director of the Legislative Affairs Agency. In the
early years, the council met frequently but in recent years
meetings have become sporadic. The council evolved into an
executive committee with individuals with an interest or
expertise in telecommunications.
The administration has taken a proactive information technology
(IT) approach and state agencies are now doing annual IT plans
to identify human resources and other assets. A planning and
review process exists with representatives from each department
that is reviewed by the Office of the Governor and the Office of
Management and Budget. Because these duties are currently
performed in the Department of Administration, EO 113 would
officially transfer the duties to reflect current practice.
4:42:38 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT stated that there is legislative concern about
the Legislature, as a separate branch of government, being
included. Page 2, lines 25-28 contains the first reference to
the Legislature and that continues throughout the bill, he said.
He asked Mr. Brooks to speak to the advisability of having the
Legislature included and to explain why the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and the Judicial Branch are specifically not
included.
4:43:38 PM
MR. BROOKS said the EO simply restates the current statute. "We
certainly have no intent here to try and usurp authority or
dictate what's appropriate for the Legislative Branch in terms
of IT." The relationship with Legislative Affairs Agency on IT
issues is cordial and collaborative and the administration
wouldn't be opposed to a bill that clearly states that the
Legislative Branch isn't subject to Department of Administration
(DOA) policies, but it would take legislation to clarify the
point, he said.
4:44:29 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT recapped then asked if they couldn't exclude
the Legislature in the EO format.
MR.BROOKS said he thought that an EO simply transfers existing
statute and it can't be changed in a substantive way. "It's not
our desire to change a working relationship that currently
exists, but it would take a separate bill to exclude the
Legislature."
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Kevin Jardell if the Legislature had to
be included.
KEVIN JARDELL, legislative director for Governor Murkowski, said
the EO is a constitutional authority of the governor that is an
efficient way to transfer functions within the Executive Branch.
In reviewing the current statute they decided it was
bureaucratic and unwieldy and the reason the council has met so
infrequently in the last few years. Under the current TIC, the
Legislature has one voting and two non-voting members.
"Realistically, with a 17 member committee that hasn't met in
four years, we didn't perceive the Legislature's power or
authority diminishing since we don't actively use this process."
EO 113 recognizes the IT process that has been used the last two
years, which is through the Department of Administration with
consultation of Legislative Affairs Agency and other members.
The Department of Law said excluding the Legislature wasn't
possible because removing the Legislature would be a substantive
change, which is outside the scope of an EO. That's why they
followed current legislation and transferred the duties to DOA.
"We...had some questions as to why the Legislature would have
put itself in in the first place. It seems to be a conflict of
separation of powers there and we would certainly support the
Legislature removing itself from that mandatory authority."
Anything to encourage cooperation between the branches would be
welcome, he said.
4:48:24 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked about one quasi-independent corporation
versus another.
MR. JARDELL said two years ago the administration began
implementing a new enterprise-level IT plan. They tried to
create similarities and use the same technologies whenever
practical to gain efficiency with the state. The enterprise-
level plan has been effective in choosing new technologies.
Quasi-independent agencies are still in the Executive Branch so
it makes sense to have discussions about cooperative use.
Frequently the discussions lead to waivers from the enterprise
plan, but the discussion is important to ensure that the people
are receiving maximum benefit from the technology that was
purchased.
4:49:50 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if they would leave the railroad out if
they were starting over.
MR. JARDELL said he wouldn't suggest changing how the railroad
is treated. The included agencies have been a part of the
process and productive in the discussions.
4:50:27 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether they considered taking a
legislative approach to accommodate the separation of powers.
MR. JARDELL said they decided the best policy was to move
forward recognizing the system that is in place. The
administration wasn't ready to suggest how the Legislature
should or should not act. The Executive Branch is moving forward
to address what they need and they are open to working with the
Legislature if they elect to exclude themselves.
4:51:30 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT said the Legislature has 60 days to disapprove
an EO with an independent resolution. Another option is for the
Legislature to introduce a separate piece of legislation to make
the separation without the EO.
4:52:11 PM
MR. JARDELL agreed the Legislature could introduce legislation
to change the methodology, but it would delay things. It would
simply be an expenditure of resources to recognize the current
process. The administration favors the EO as a more efficient
method and if the Legislature introduces legislation to remove
itself, the administration would support that action.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Pam Varni to come forward.
PAM VARNI, executive director of the Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA), advised she has been a TIC member sine 1993. Although
former Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer was an active chair, she
wasn't aware of meetings since that time. She described the
meetings as beneficial to the Legislature because they provided
an opportunity to find out what the Executive Branch was doing
and a venue to make LAA views known. The University of Alaska,
the Executive Branch and the Legislature also collaborated on
video teleconferencing.
A number of years ago the Legislative Council standardized
hardware and software for the Legislature. Shortly thereafter
the TIC brought up the same subject to provide standardization
and make it possible to exchange files between departments, the
Executive Branch and the Legislature. At that time decisions
were made that were beneficial in getting the branches to work
together.
There's a separation of powers problem with EO 113 and "It would
be interesting to find out whether our attorneys feel that this
EO could be withdrawn and a new one inserted that would separate
us out."
4:55:22 PM
The relationship with the Executive Branch has been good and
there has been no difficulty collaborating on the statewide area
network. None-the-less, they don't want to go to the
Commissioner of Administration to get written approval to do
things differently.
4:56:06 PM
She suggested adding a section so the commissioner of the
Department of Administration would notify the director of the
court system and the executive director of the Legislative
Affairs Agency so they could stay abreast. "We have no problem
with the TIC moving from the Office of the Governor to the
Department of Administration, but we'd like to know what
possible changes they would be making so that they keep us
informed so that we have a chance to plan and to react to those
changes."
MS. VARNI urged the Office of the Governor to withdraw the EO or
the committee to disapprove the EO and introduce separate
legislation making it clear that the Legislature is not under
that umbrella.
4:57:07 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked whether Legislative Legal advised that
withdrawing the EO and resubmitting it would allow the latitude
to make the separation or would separate legislation be
necessary.
MS. VARNI said she hadn't had the conversation.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked whether she feels the Legislature has a
good handle on the direction it is headed with regard to IT and
whether it is ready to go it alone through LAA. Also the
Executive and Legislative Branches must collaborate so would the
connection still be strong enough to maintain consistency.
MS. VARNI replied LAA currently has sufficient data processing
staff to support the Legislature. Although autonomy is
necessary, partnering with the Executive Branch for specific
projects would still be desirable.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Clothier whether he needed to clarify
anything.
5:02:03 PM
CURTIS CLOTHIER, data processing manager, Legislative Affairs
Agency, explained that LAA still uses the state's wide area
network for communication so legislative communication uses
their wires. They have no problem with the Executive Branch and
they work well with ETS [Enterprise Technical Services] however,
future policies and procedures might change that. Separation of
power is a concern, he concluded.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Jardell how it would be best to go
forward.
5:03:41 PM
MR. JARDELL replied the administration believes it is best to
recognize the EO, which is the current way of doing business in
the Executive Branch. If changes need to be made, the
legislative process is the way to do that, he said.
5:04:14 PM
This came to a head because the administration found that each
department has its own regulations on dealing with requests for
public information. The administration decided to create a
statewide policy for clarity, but the Department of Law said
they had to meet with the governor, every commissioner and LAA
to write regulations for a consistent policy. They decided this
was too unwieldy and it's within the Governor's authority to
change the structure of the Executive Branch. "We see this as
just recognizing a very inefficient system and moving to the
efficient system that we are currently utilizing. That does not
preclude legislation from being introduced and moving forward."
5:06:34 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether there had been an overview
on the House side and whether they expressed any particular
desire regarding how to proceed.
MR. JARDELL said they were going to submit a committee bill to
exclude the Legislature from the process.
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked the legislation could be vetoed in
which case the EO would go into effect and the Legislature would
be under the administration. If they could agree on
legislation, why wouldn't the administration repeal EO 113?
MR. JARDELL said there is no guarantee that something will get
through both bodies and this is too important to chance a side
rail.
5:08:18 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT said no one is itching for a fight and he was
simply looking for a common sense way to move forward.
There were no further questions.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he would set EO 113 aside.
5:09:06 PM
SB 72-OATHS; NOTARIES PUBLIC; STATE SEAL
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT said the committee would hear SB 72 and
although he didn't intend to take any action, he wanted the
issue introduced.
ANNETTE KREITZER, chief of staff to Lt. Governor Loren Leman,
asked members to look at the sheet comparing the current notary
statute and the proposed changes. They vetted this with other
notaries, insurance company lobbyists and with banks, she said.
With regard to qualifications, they propose: lowering the age to
18; making residency requirements the same as the general
residency statute; requiring the applicant to reside legally in
the U.S. and not have been convicted or incarcerated for a
felony within 10 years of the application.
5:10:45 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked whether a person living abroad could
notarize documents.
SCOTT CLARK, notary commission administrator, explained that
notary commissions are restricted to a certain area so someone
that wasn't physically in the state wouldn't qualify for an
Alaskan notary commission. As proposed, the applicant must
reside in the U.S. but wouldn't have to be a citizen.
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked the stamp doesn't travel outside the
state.
MR. CLARK agreed.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked whether military officer
signatures would continue to be recognized as official.
MR. CLARK said current statute recognizes the authority of
commissioned military officers and no change is proposed.
5:13:23 PM
MS. KREITZER said the commissions are separated into limited
governmental notaries public, and notaries public. Notaries
public have a four-year term while limited governmental notaries
public have open-ended commissions that end when employment
ends.
As proposed, the $40 application fee would remain the same, but
the fee for a Lieutenant Governor certificate would increase
from $2 to $5.
With regard to a bond, a $1,000 notary bond would be required of
all applicants except the new limited governmental notary public
and the Lieutenant Governor is required to keep those for two
years.
5:14:54 PM
SENATOR WAGONER questioned the necessity of increasing the fee
by $3.
MS. KREITZER said the increase would bring an additional $8,700
as reflected in the fiscal note.
MR. CLARK said the $2 fee has been in effect since 1961. The
certificates verify details about notarizations and are usually
required for documents that go to foreign countries, he
explained. The $2 fee didn't cover the cost of the 3,000 ornate
certificates prepared each year and the $5 fee is fair. Many
states charge between $20 and $25 for the same type certificate.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said these are clearly not the standard
notarization that you get from the bank.
MR. CLARK said most of the public never sees or needs this type
certificate.
5:17:06 PM
MS. KREITZER explained that with regard to commission types the
limited governmental notaries public would include municipal and
federal employees in addition to state employees. This makes it
clear that the commissions may be held concurrently.
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether limited commissions are
limited to a specific job and/or specific transaction.
MS. KREITZER clarified that limited governmental notaries public
have that title because they work for a governmental entity.
They can do all the same notary actions as a notary public it
simply signifies they work for a federal, state or municipal
government and that they don't charge a fee.
5:18:58 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted they don't charge a fee and then
questioned whether they could notarize things for the general
public.
MS. KREITZER said they could notarize things for the public, but
typically people go elsewhere.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked whether a limited governmental notary
public working in a government office would have the power to
decline offering private notary services.
MR. CLARK referenced page 10, lines 29-30 to clarify that a
limited governmental notary public could perform notarial acts
only in the conduct of official government business.
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned whether that was a new restriction.
5:20:38 PM
MS. KREITZER said it is new and they repealed and readopted most
of the statute. She said they examined the statute carefully,
but were certainly open to suggestions
With regard to commission revocation, she explained that the
Administrative Procedure Act is cumbersome so they propose that
the Lieutenant Governor would have the ability to review
complaints and dismiss them if found to be trivial.
They propose to move to a web based system, but don't want to
expose private personal information. The public needs to know
who and where notaries public are located and how to reach them,
but they propose to keep e-mail addresses, fax numbers and other
information private.
No changes were proposed for non-commissioned notaries.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER suggested the state not get to the point
that notaries public all charge the maximum fee allowed under
law.
MS. KREITZER assured members the Lieutenant Governor has no
intention to go down that path.
She noted a proposed amendment that is designed to remove
impediments to electronic notarization in the future. She asked
members to review the draft amendment before the bill is heard
again.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked what constitutes electronic notarization
because he's only familiar with traditional notarization.
5:24:54 PM
MR. CLARK explained the traditional aspect of notarization
wouldn't change and electronic notarizations in the future would
be held to the same high standards as current notarizations.
That being said, he couldn't say what an electronic notarization
would look like because no pilot project had been successful to
date. Digital signatures are common right now and successfully
addressing the intra-country security issue is a work in
progress.
CHAIR THERRIAULT questioned, "The current wording here removes
impediments to move to that through regulatory changes?"
MS. KREITZER said they aren't looking for regulatory authority.
It's simply preparing the way for a future Legislature to define
what electronic notarization would look like. If you believe
we're looking for regulatory authority we're open to amendment,
she said.
5:27:06 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT read the proposed amendment and interpreted it
to give authority.
MS. KREITZER said her interpretation is that you can't adopt
regulations where technology doesn't exist.
CHAIR THERRIAULT replied if the technology came into existence
tomorrow they'd be pre-approved.
MS. KREITZER agreed it would be to the extent that the law would
allow. She said she wouldn't mind withdrawing the regulations
portion because the intent is to remove impediments.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said a future Legislature that wants to make
that policy call would remove the impediments when appropriate.
There were no further questions.
5:28:22 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he would hold SB 72 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Therriault adjourned the meeting at 5:28:37 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|