Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/25/1999 08:05 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 40 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Number 2140 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced the next order of business before the committee as HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs; relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development and the commissioner of commerce and rural development; adjusting the membership of certain multi- member bodies to reflect the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of departments; creating the office of international trade and relating to its duties; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Section 75, page 44, line 12 of HB 40 and suggested that the language in subsection (b) be changed from "may" to "shall". REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 40, Alaska State Legislature, noted that he had discussed this change with Representative Joule yesterday. Representative Kohring said that he would be open to the modification if the committee feels it is necessary. He pointed out that the language in HB 40 is reflective of the language in the statutes. Number 2281 TOM LAWSON, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Commerce & Economic Development, commented that much work went into this fiscal note although it was an update from the fiscal note for HB 400 last year. He noted that the fiscal note before the committee includes one-time costs as well as savings. The fiscal note includes input from the following agencies: the Department of Commerce & Economic Development (DCED), the Department of Community & Regional Affairs (DCRA), the Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), the Department of Labor, and the Department of Administration. The Department of Administration is involved due to the department's leasing specialist, Keith Gerken. Mr. Lawson emphasized that the fiscal note is a best guess. He pointed out that HB 40 would impact four separate agencies, over $200 million worth of programs, and approximately 500 state employees. MR. LAWSON directed the committee to the first page of the fiscal note. The total cost of HB 40 is $718,700 for the first year. Savings are realized beginning in the second year, therefore savings in the second year amount to $189,000 which grows to a savings of $221,100 in the third year and thereafter. He noted that there are two major elements to HB 40: the savings from staff cuts, and the capital cost. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS understood Mr. Lawson to say that in fiscal year (FY) 2000 it will cost $718,700 to implement HB 40. Does that cost span all the departments? MR. LAWSON replied yes. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if in the following years the same amount of money would be saved or would it be a zero increase every year. He noted that the fiscal note projects a savings of $221,100 in FY 2002; would an additional $221,100 be saved in FY 2003? MR. LAWSON said that it would be the same savings each year. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated, "So, in reality, it's zero those next years. You're not actually saving anything from the previous year." MR. LAWSON agreed. Number 2475 MR. LAWSON directed the committee to page 2 of the fiscal note which discusses the staff reductions. The first staff reductions are one commissioner and one secretary. Mr. Lawson believed that the work load would increase for the first two years while adjustments are made to the integration of the two departments. Therefore, Mr. Lawson did not believe any further staff could be cut at that point. He pointed out that three of the directors are downgraded from which some savings would result. The third year savings is the result of a personnel rule which states that personnel in a frozen salary situation would have to absorb the pay cut in the third year of the freeze. Mr. Lawson understood the need to reduce staff. Therefore, in the first twelve months a comprehensive review of all staff will occur and focus on the need to have a second deputy commissioner and a special assistant. In the second twelve months of HB 40, the focus would shift the administrative services staff in order to determine if there is any duplication. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that his administrative staff is swamped virtually all the time. Although the staff may be doing the same tasks under the merger, the work from one agency is not eliminated. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if after the first 24 months, does the fiscal note reflect a reduction in staff. MR. LAWSON replied no, but indicated that it would be probable that there would be more staff reductions. Number 2659 MR. LAWSON moved on to the second major element of the fiscal note, the capital cost. The capital cost includes the moving costs, the one time network services changes, and space planning. The total capital costs are $907,700. He explained that they felt the best way to estimate the moving costs was to establish a moving cost factor. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that Mr. Gerken determined a moving cost factor of $6,100 which is outlined on page six. The next step was to create the Anchorage and Juneau space allocation worksheet which lead to the inventory of the Anchorage and Juneau staff, the determination of where that staff was located, and where that staff should move. He noted that the staff inventory is based on current year staffing levels and therefore, does not include any budgeted increments that may be included in the Governor's FY 2000 budget request. He pointed out that no new leasing costs are included in the capital costs. Mr. Lawson explained that the reason for referring to the costs as capital costs is because he did not believe everything could be accomplished in one year which would necessitate the money carrying forward into future years. The money should be budgeted in the budget of the Office of Management and Budget due to HB 40's impact on four different agencies. MR. LAWSON directed the committee to page four of the fiscal note which is the space allocation worksheet for Juneau. Per HB 40, the job training staff would be moved to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor feels it important that the nine job training staff be physically moved into the Department of Labor. However, the current space for the Department of Labor does not allow for extra staff. There is a commerce office, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), in that building. Therefore, the ASMI staff would be moved to the DCRA offices and the labor staff would be moved in. Since he believed it vital that the DCRA programs be integrated into the DCED programs, Mr. Lawson said that the DCRA staff left should be moved into the State Office Building. However, the ninth floor which houses DCED is filled. In order to achieve this integration, the Division of Occupational Licensing staff would have to be moved to the DCRA building. Mr. Lawson pointed out that the worksheet specifies that the Head Start program, three staff, would be moved from DCRA to DHSS, but that is not reflected in the options listed at the bottom of page four of the fiscal note. With that error, the total number of positions being moved, 96, does not change. Number 2953 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that the fiscal note allocates $25,000 for Juneau to contract an architect to design office facilities. She understood that the architect would not be designing new offices, but rather placing staff in the current space. MR. LAWSON replied yes. TAPE 99-20, SIDE B CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to what are tenant improvements. MR. LAWSON deferred to Mr. Gerken who is currently out of town. Mr. Gerken is comfortable that this is a real cost estimate. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the construction of tenant improvements amounts to over 50 percent of the moving costs. Co-Chairman Halcro indicated that the cost for the construction of tenant improvements is a variable and has some flexibility. MR. LAWSON again deferred to Mr. Gerken. Number 2900 MR. LAWSON directed the committee to the Anchorage space allocation worksheet. He noted that the Anchorage worksheet is a radical change from last year's fiscal note which is good news. The major difference is that the move into the Atwood Building is 12 months further along. The Atwood Building was purchased by the state and money was appropriated for the move of all state employees into the building. Therefore, the costs for moving staff into the Atwood Building is already appropriated and is not included in the fiscal note. At this point, almost all of DCED's offices as well as the Governor's offices in the Frontier Building are scheduled to move into the Atwood Building this summer. He noted that the Department of Natural Resources has already started to move into the Atwood Building. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that due to the leasing situation in the Atwood Building, everyone cannot be moved at once. Moving the DCRA staff into the Atwood Building would possibly take up to six or seven years. In Anchorage, 15 job training staff in DCRA would be moved to the Department of Labor. The child care program, 14 staff, would be moved to DHSS. A total of 29 staff moving in Anchorage would need to be paid for through HB 40. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that the total moving cost for the staff in Juneau and Anchorage is $762,500. Number 2760 MR. LAWSON moved to the second aspect of the capital cost, the network services. The challenge is to convert various systems. Due to the movement of the Anchorage labor staff and child care staff out of DCRA, new hardware and software systems are necessary. The cost of those systems are estimated on the last page of the fiscal note. The network software for DCRA and DCED are not the same which resulted in the component in the fiscal note to transfer the system hardware and software in order to have the same kinds of systems. If the goal is to truly integrate all the programs, the network systems must be integrated as well. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to why different divisions utilized different software. MR. LAWSON explained that different state agencies utilize different software. For example, DCRA uses a Windows NT server while DCED uses a NetWare server. Mr. Lawson did not believe there is a statewide policy on network software. There are standards for software on individual work stations. MR. LAWSON continued on with the last element of the capital costs, space planning. This would require a space planner to work with the Juneau staff. A space planner has been utilized for months in Anchorage due to the planned move to the Atwood Building. He said that it is a challenge to make the most efficient use of the space, especially when the space is limited. Number 2548 YVONNE CHASE, Acting Administrative Director, Director, Division of Community & Rural Development, Department of Community & Regional Affairs, pointed out that there are costs that can be quantified which are included in the fiscal note while other costs are difficult to measure. Ms. Chase said that one could argue that as programs move from one department to another, the services to the community will be continued. However, the notion of similar services being placed together is debatable. She noted that DCRA spans the spectrum from fuel to babies which to many would seem incompatible. She pointed out that with DHSS for example, families need more than just social services. In DCRA, one of the most effective things is working with communities on the basic survival needs in energy. Further, through the Division of Municipal & Regional Assistance there is assistance provided to communities to identify problems and work to change those problems. One of the important pieces for that is the support for children and families through job training and the early childhood programs. MS. CHASE emphasized that the costs for communities that do not receive that combined service delivery system often results in an increase in child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Ms. Chase reiterated that the services will remain no matter the organization, but there is about a five year window for people to settle again. Ms. Chase identified the issue at hand as which way saves money in the long-run. Number 2333 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, testifying via teleconference from Bethel, expressed concern that rural Alaska not lose or have diminished service in those services that were previously provided by DCRA. She noted that DCRA has been very helpful with the fish disaster. CARL BERGER, Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council (LKEDC), testified via teleconference from Bethel. He explained that the Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council is an Alaska Regional Development Organization (ARDOR) which serves 27 communities on the Lower Kuskokwim. Mr. Berger expressed the need to continue the service provided through state agencies as in the past. The continuation of service no matter the organization is of importance not only for disaster situations, but also for normal everyday services provided to the rest of the state. MICHELLE DECORSO, Community Development Planner, Association of Village Council Presidents, testified via teleconference from Bethel. She believed that DCRA has always been a vital link to villages in the region. She described DCRA as a sort of clearing house of information even for services that DCRA does not provide. Ms. Decorso wondered if DCRA would maintain its presence. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING reiterated that the primary intent of HB 40 is to focus on economic development. This legislation also attempts to preserve and protect the integrity of programs currently in DCRA because Representative Kohring believed that if such restructuring was not attempted, departments would be open to substantial budget cuts. He did not feel that staff administering these programs would be overburdened because only the oversight of the management structure is being increased. MS. DECORSO asked if Representative Kohring intended to keep the Bethel office open. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING clarified that there is no language in HB 40 that would eliminate the Bethel office or any other office. Any modifications to programs and the location of the offices will be left to the discretion of the new department. Number 1990 SHARON CLARK, testifying via teleconference from Clarks Point, believed that DCRA has established a great relationship and provided much responsibility to the Bush. She did not want the efficiencies or services of DCRA to be diminished in any way if the consolidation should occur. With regard to the cost savings of moving staff, Ms. Clark was concerned that the staff reduction savings are not realistic to the cost of space planning and the conversion of network services. She noted that DCED does not really deal with the social problems of the communities. Ms. Clark did agree with the move of child care and job training due to the significant savings that could be realized from the elimination of duplicative services. Ms. Clark supported maintaining DCRA as a separate entity. RAYMOND AGUVULUK, Mayor, City of Wainwright, testified via teleconference from Wainwright. He inquired as to why the consolidation of DCRA and DCED was wanted. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that HB 40 would save on upper management costs when the departments are consolidated. Representative Kohring noted that there are nine programs within DCRA and DCED that are similar in nature. Therefore, consolidation of programs similar in nature would create more efficiency. He reiterated that HB 40 would also focus on economic development. MR. AGUVULUK asked if HB 40 would be passed this year. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated that HB 40 would go through the process. The legislation has two more committee referrals, House Labor & Commerce and House Finance. Number 1616 TIM GILMARTIN, Mayor and City Manager, Metlakatla Indian Community, testified via teleconference from Metlakatla. He noted that his experience has taught him that paring down is not always the answer. Mr. Gilmartin said that he was trying to keep informed. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS said that the committee wanted to ensure that rural communities are not forgotten and are not hurt by HB 40. PERRY AHSOGEAK, Director, Community & National Resources, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said, "We oppose this legislation." He noted that DCRA has always been a voice for the rural areas and has always listened and worked for the villages. MARVIN YODER, City Manager, City of Galena, testified via teleconference from Galena. Mr. Yoder opposed HB 40. He discussed his time working with the City of Craig which is doing well now, however other small communities need the services provided by DCRA. He said, "For these small communities, having a friendly agency dedicated to their needs may make the difference between survival and dissolution." Mr. Yoder pointed out that there is uncertainty regarding the status of second class cities, village councils, and other organized boroughs. The state is at a critical point in planning for what a municipality is. Mr. Yoder believed there should be an agency dedicated to finding solutions to such. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that under the new organization established by HB 40, there would be a new Rural Affairs Division which is essentially the former DCRA. There would also be a Statewide Economic Development Division which is essentially the former DCED. The programs of the departments remain in tact. Representative Kohring reiterated the improvements that would be found in scoping and planning due to this centralized approach with regard to centralized expert staff and financial support for rural areas. This is closer to the one-stop shop concept. MR. YODER said that he was in favor of the efficiency, but the concern remains that the small communities need a department such as DCRA. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that the plan is to retain that connection. Number 1190 JOHN EASTAN, testifying via teleconference from Dillingham, opposed HB 40. Mr. Eastan understood the need for consolidation of duplicative services, but the overlapping missions of DCRA and DCED seem to be a bit different in some areas. For example, the mission of DCED for growth differs from the infrastructure development that DCRA has in place. The DCRA has a more aggressive approach towards the development of resources that may not take rural areas into consideration. Mr. Eastan expressed concern that the grant programs assistance to obtain grants, municipal assistance and revenue sharing, capital grants to tribal governments, training, and technical assistance to governments may be interrupted or severed. He also indicated concern with the loss of a cabinet position who is the advocate for the rural areas. Number 1042 LARRY DICKERSON, Executive Director, Copper Valley Economic Development Council, testified via teleconference from Glennallen. Mr. Dickerson said that he favored improving efficiency and effectiveness of the state delivery of programs. Mr. Dickerson noted that there are some essential functions that DCRA provides that no one in the state organization provides. No matter what happens with regard to the consolidation of programs, he expressed the need to ensure that those essential functions of DCRA not be eliminated. Through his experience with reorganization or consolidation, the delivery of services, resources and/or functions are harmed. MR. DICKERSON pointed out that DCRA is the one organization that not only does economic development, but also helps to build the capacities needed for economic development in the state. As part of the unorganized borough, Glennallen does not have many of the organizational capacities to manage the growth and change occurring. He noted that he has had a 20 year or so relationship with DCRA due to his various positions over the state. Mr. Dickerson emphasized the need for the essential functions, services, and resources to remain for those in the rural areas. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN expressed the need for DCRA to maintain its identity through this merger due to the department's importance to all of rural Alaska. There being no further public testimony, the public testimony was closed. Number 0805 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to page 44, line 12, Section 75 (b). He proposed an amendment that "may" be changed to "shall". He recognized that the language, "may", was taken from the DCRA statute, but the language for DCED is "shall". If these two departments are to be consolidated and further budget reductions are reviewed, the "may" language leaves the door open as far as what the department can and cannot do. Representative Joule urged the committee to change the language. Representative Joule offered the amendment which follows: Page 44, line 12 Delete "may" Insert "shall" REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING concurred with the proposed amendment which he believed would make the former DCRA stronger. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she supported Representative Joule's amendment. She derived from the testimony today that the concern is that the services of DCRA be maintained. The proposed language change could alleviate that concern. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the committee was working off the committee substitute; did the committee adopt the proposed CS, Version LS0056\D, Lauterbach, 3/16/99, at the last meeting? CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS said that the proposed CS, Version D, was adopted at the last meeting. Co-Chairman Harris asked if there was any objection to Representative Joule's amendment. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. Number 0504 CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that he had a proposed amendment, Amendment 2, for the committee's consideration. He pointed out that part of the fear with the merger of the two departments is that the effectiveness of DCRA would be diminished. The overall goal of the sponsor is well-intended and Co-Chairman Halcro supported the concept, but care must be taken in this endeavor. He informed everyone that the committee heard from Byron Mallott regarding his work with communities and the concerns expressed by those communities. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that Amendment 2 would establish a rural affairs advocate in the Office of the Governor. This notion developed after discussions regarding the Rural Governance Commission who wanted a point person for rural Alaska. Amendment 2 would create a rural affairs advocate, a cabinet-level position, that would be appointed by the governor. This advocate would work out of the governor's office and be subject to the same rules of ethics as commissioners. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that the rural affairs advocate will have statutory duties which are listed in Section 44.19.012 of Amendment 2. Co-Chairman Halcro believed that the rural affairs advocate could be a good source of information for the legislature in years to come. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO moved that Amendment 2 be adopted. Amendment 2 reads as follows: Page 1, line 9, following "development": Insert "; establishing in the Office of the Governor the position of rural affairs advocate" Page 26, following line 4: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 50. AS 39.20 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec.39.20.085. Salary of rural affairs advocate. The monthly salary of the rural affairs advocate appointed under AS 44.10.012 is equal to Step E, Range 28, of the salary schedule in AS 39.27.011(a) for Juneau, Alaska ." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 26, following line 6: Insert new bill sections to read: "*Sec.52. AS 39.52.170(c) is amended to read: (c) The head of a principal; executive department of the state may not accept employment for compensating outside the agency that the executive head serves. The rural affairs advocate may not accept employment for compensation outside the Office of the Governor. *Sec.53. AS 39.52.180(d) is amended to read: (d) A former governor, lieutenant governor, rural affairs advocate, or department head, as appropriate. This subsection does not prohibit service as a volunteer lobbyist described in AS 24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices Commission." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 28, following line 16: Insert new bill sections to read: "*Sec.64. AS 44.19.010 is amended to read: Sec. 44.19.010. Office of the Governor. The Office of the Governor includes the lieutenant governor, the budget officer, the rural affairs advocate, and the staff that the governor finds necessary to administer the executive powers of the state. *Sec.65. AS 44.19 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec.44.19.012. Rural affairs advocate. (a) The governor shall appoint a rural affairs advocate whose duties are to (1) advise the governor and the heads of each principal executive department about the role of rural governments; (2) monitor and advance recommendations about proposed policy changes that would affect rural governments and rural affairs; (3) monitor and advance recommendations about delivery of government services (4) assist in coordinating efforts of state agencies in providing services to and in the rural areas of the state; (5) advocate within state government for maximization of local autonomy and local control; and (6) encourage respect for differing aspirations, traditions, and cultures in the state. (b) The rural affairs advocate may not employ staff or adopt regulations." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Renumber internal references to bill sections in accordance with this amendment. Below are all internal bill section references in this bill: Page 69, line 26 Page 70, line 30 Page 71, line 3 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She inquired as to how the rural affairs advocate would mesh with the head of the rural affairs division. Would the rural affairs advocate be the advocate for all departments or for the revamped Department of Commerce and Rural Development? CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that the Governor currently has a special assistant on rural issues which would be replaced by the rural affairs advocate. The rural affairs advocate would be the voice of all departments with regard to all issues pertaining to rural Alaska. TAPE 99-21, SIDE A CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO said, in response to Representative Murkowski, that the rural affairs advocate would not be subject to confirmation, but would be appointed by the governor. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that all the governor's appointments are subject to confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the rural affairs advocate is not a commissioner and therefore the position does not require confirmation by the governor. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said that he would be flexible in order to provide assurances to those in rural Alaska that the programs in the new department are given adequate attention and administered properly. Representative Kohring expressed the need to ensure that the rural affairs advocate position does not result in a blossoming of additional positions underneath this cabinet level position. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO directed Representative Kohring to page 2, line 28, which should address his concern. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised that the primary difference between the current special assistant to the Governor on rural affairs and the proposed rural affairs advocate is that the rural affairs advocate is a cabinet position. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed with Representative Murkowski. He noted that currently the Governor's special assistant to rural affairs position is vacant. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked, directing the question to the rural committee members, if this rural affairs advocate would alleviate some of the rural district's concerns regarding the consolidation. Number 0325 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the Alaska Constitution requires the existence of a local government affairs agency under the Executive Branch which has been the DCRA with its commissioner. Representative Joule said that voice would be carried to the new consolidated department, but that would not be the sole purpose of the new department. Representative Joule supported the proposed language of the rural affairs advocate. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the special assistant does not have statutory duties, but the proposed rural affairs advocate would have statutory duties. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS inquired as to the other cabinet positions that are not confirmed by the legislature. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO said that he was not sure. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that at this level there would be a lot of networking between the different departments and commissioners. He believed there would be positive interaction. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said, "I'll support it. I think it's time. We've got to start showing that we do have a heart. ...and we do think of the whole of Alaska as a whole, not just Anchorage, Fairbanks and not really look at the Bush. So, I think it's time and I really appreciate it." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Amendment 2 is an unfortunate compromise that he would strongly support. "I think that the one man one vote that had us, forced us to redistrict the Senate by population did a disservice to the intention of the upper House in our state. And, certainly on a national level, the framers understood that the Senate was the only protection the small states had against the overwhelming power of the large and populous states. And I believe that our state constitution framers had exactly the same intention and that--the idea that it would representative--representation by judicial districts or something else other than a strictly population base was an attempt to protect the large and rural areas from the unintended, but overwhelming power of the population bases. And rural Alaska lost a strong protection and advocacy inadvertently as a result of that ruling." Representative Dyson believed that Co-Chairman Halcro was making the best out of an unfortunate decision. He noted that the only other strong voice the rural areas have in the legislature is this committee. He appreciated the committee's sensitivity to the disenfranchisement of rural populations. Representative Dyson trusted that the rural affairs advocate will have more than symbolic meaning. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Representative Murkowski maintained her objection. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reiterated that she supported Amendment 2, but she did not see language in Amendment 2 that states that the rural affairs advocate is appointed by the governor. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO directed Representative Murkowski to Section 65, lines 13 and 14 subsection (a) specifies that this position is appointed by the governor. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if this cabinet appointment is subject to legislative confirmation. JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant to Representative Halcro, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that the pay range of the rural affairs advocate is at the cabinet level, but the appointment is not a cabinet appointment. Therefore, legislative confirmation is not required. Mr. Lack noted that the committee could change that, if desired. Since this position is not a department head, the constitution does not require confirmation. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS believed that the intent of the rural affairs advocate is to be similar to the Director of the Office of Management & Budget. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that the Chief of Staff and Director of the Office of Management & Budget are not subject to confirmation which would be similar to the rural affairs advocate. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if there were any other objections. There being no further objections, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1177 CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO moved to report CSHB 40, Version LS0056\D, Lauterbach, 3/24/99, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that HB 40 is scheduled to be heard in House Labor & Commerce and House Finance Committees. There being no objection, CSHB 40(CRA) was reported out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked the committee for its consideration of HB 40 which he believed was a better piece of legislation due to the amendments. He believed that the fiscal situation of the state was bringing rural and urban Alaska together.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|