Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/15/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB55 | |
| HB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 63-ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY OPERATIONS BOARD
3:12:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; renaming
the Alaska Marine Transportation Advisory Board the Alaska
Marine Highway Operations Board; relating to the membership and
duties of the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 63(TRA).]
3:13:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS prefaced the consideration of amendments by
explaining that several amendments [Amendment 8 and Amendment
"G.17"] would no longer be offered; further, he noted that he
and Representative Kaufman were co-sponsoring Amendment 12.
3:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.1, Fisher, 3/29/21, which read:
Page 2, line 12, following "state":
Insert ", and no more than two of whom may be
members, or retired members, of a union that
represents employees of the Alaska marine highway
system"
Page 2, line 24, through page 3, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(5) two public members, at least one of
whom has experience in business and finance, appointed
by the speaker of the house of representatives and who
serve at the pleasure of the speaker of the house of
representatives;
(6) two public members, at least one of
whom has experience in business and finance, appointed
by the president of the senate and who serve at the
pleasure of the president of the senate."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:15:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 1 would provide
diverse experience and a range of competency by allowing union
membership on the board [the Alaska Marine Highway Operations
Board]. She noted that no more than two of the nine board
members could be union representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that Amendment 5 [which had not
been offered yet] included elements to ensure that board members
would be competent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKIINS asked Mr. Crocker to share the bill
sponsor's perspective on Amendment 1.
3:17:03 PM
KERRY CROCKER, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, remarked:
We don't understand or necessarily agree that being a
union member or ... retiring from a union ... why that
would preclude you from serving on the board or why
that would disqualify you from serving on the board
given the parameters of choosing the board.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that his objection was maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that Amendment 1 would in no way
preclude union members from serving on the board. She explained
that the proposed amendment stated that no more than two union
representatives could sit on the board to allow for other
members of the public to provide representation from alternative
perspectives.
3:18:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives
Tarr, Story, Claman, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-5.
3:19:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.2, Fisher, 4/1/21, which read:
Page 5, line 3:
Delete "January 1, 2022"
Insert "July 1, 2021"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY believed Amendment 2 was important because
"members" across the state wanted this plan to be completed.
She expressed her hope that the proposed legislation would be
implemented as soon as possible so the new board could start
working at the beginning of [FY 22].
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested that [the effective date]
should coincide with when legislators were in session.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that [the board] could begin before
the legislature was in session. She believed it would work
smoothly.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned what would happen if the
proposed legislation failed to pass this session. He gathered
that if that were to happen, the effective date could be
revised.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in response to Representative Kaufman,
said she appreciated his concern about timing. She expressed
her hope that the legislature recognized the urgency of this
issue.
3:21:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the sponsor's perspective on
Amendment 2.
MR. CROCKER relayed that the sponsor was supportive of Amendment
2 and emphasized the importance of "[getting] the ball rolling."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities' (DOT&PF's) perspective on amending the
effective date to July 1, 2021.
3:22:39 PM
ROB CARPENTER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
DOT&PF, said he had no problem with the proposed effective date
or an immediate effective date. He agreed that [a sooner
effective date would be better].
3:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for a clearer picture of what would
happen if the bill were to pass after July 1, 2021. He inquired
about the timeline for appointing members and getting the work
started.
MR. CARPENTER indicated that he was not entirely sure. He
explained that it would take time to establish a "recruiting
mechanism" to identify and vet potential board members; further,
there would need to be an appointment process. He reiterated
that the sooner the legislation was effective, the sooner that
process could begin.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned how much time would be allowed
for the appointment process if the bill were to pass after the
effective date of July 1, 2021. He asked when the board would
be required to have members.
MR. CARPENTER said he did not understand the question. He asked
Representative Eastman to rephrase it.
3:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed a scenario in which the bill
passed on August 1, 2021, with an effective date of July 1,
2021. He questioned what the timeframe would be for identifying
recruitments, vetting candidates, appointing members, and the
[first] board meeting.
MR. CARPENTER suggested deferring the question to Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA). He shared his
understanding that the proposed legislation did not identify a
recruitment timeline or recruitment processes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned how the 30-day vacancy filling
requirement would be reconciled under a scenario in which the
proposed legislation was passed after the effective date. He
asked if that clarified what Representative Eastman had asked.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was attempting to clarify whether
the candidates had to be identified, vetted, and appointed
within 30 days or less.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said it was unlikely that the legislature
would pass a bill with an effective date that was prior to the
date of passage; nonetheless, he directed the question to Mr.
Fisher for further comment.
3:27:45 PM
SANDON FISHER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, LAA,
offered his services if the legislature were to consider the
proposed legislation after its effective date. He noted that it
would not be difficult to update the effective date. He
explained that an interested party could require the appointing
authority to comply with the statute via court order if the
appointing authority had failed to follow the requirement to
fill a vacancy within 30 days, as outlined in Section 4 of the
bill
3:29:25 PM
MR. FISHER, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman regarding vacancies, confirmed that the steps for
filling a vacancy must be completed within 30 days per Section 4
of the bill.
3:29:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE proposed a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 2, such that the effective date would be changed from
July 1, 2021, to effective immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that an immediate effective date
required a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate,
which is why she preferred the effective date of July 1, 2021.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that regardless
of the effective date, an effective date clause is what required
a two-thirds vote. He asked if that was correct.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS understood that any effective date clause
required a two-thirds vote otherwise the legislation would
become effective 90 days after passage by default.
MR. FISHER believed that an immediate effective date required a
supermajority vote. He offered to follow up on the voting
specifics of effective date clauses.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS proposed that Amendment 2 be set aside
until the committee ascertained that information.
3:32:06 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:32:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Representative Story if she would be
willing to withdraw Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied in the affirmative and withdrew
Amendment 2.
3:32:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.3, Fisher, 4/5/21, which read:
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Highway"
Insert "Transportation"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Highway"
Insert "Transportation"
Page 1, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY]"
Insert "Transportation Operations [ADVISORY]"
Page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 1:
Delete "Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY]"
Insert "Transportation Operations [ADVISORY]"
Page 2, lines 6 - 7:
Delete "Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY]"
Insert "Transportation Operations [ADVISORY]"
Page 2, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY]"
Insert "Transportation Operations [ADVISORY]"
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY]"
Insert "Transportation Operations [ADVISORY]"
Page 4, line 13:
Delete "HIGHWAY"
Insert "TRANSPORTATION"
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "Highway"
Insert "Transportation"
Page 4, line 29:
Delete "Highway"
Insert "Transportation"
Page 4, line 31:
Delete "Highway"
Insert "Transportation"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:32:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would change
the board's name from the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board
to the Alaska Marine Transportation Operations Board. He
reasoned that AMHS would not be garnishing scenic highway
funding in the future, as it had not been eligible in over a
decade. Additionally, he believed that the board's scope should
not be limited to AMHS. Therefore, he posited that "Highway
Operations" should be replaced with "Transportation Operations."
3:35:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned whether there would be a material
difference with the use of the term "transportation."
MR. CARPENTER said he was unsure. He pointed out that the board
should be specific to AMHS, adding that Amendment 3 could make
the mission broader.
MR. CROCKER cited Section 11.21 of the Energy, Dependency, and
Security Act; Section 405 of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2012; and the National Defense
Authorization Act of FY 2016. He expressed his concern that [by
changing the name], AMHS could miss out on grant money. He
added that if the U.S. Department of Transportation had
designated a Marine Highway Program, Alaska should do the same.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that Amendment 3 would not
change AMHS's name. He believed that the amendment made sense
because the proposed legislation pertained to the board
specifically. Additionally, he shared his understanding that
some of the laws cited by Mr. Crocker disqualified AMHS from
garnering scenic highway funding. He conveyed that Amendment 3
would ensure that the board's scope was appropriate.
3:39:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN commented that he was weighing the costs
and benefits of changing the name. He indicated that both
arguments were compelling.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her opposition to Amendment 3.
She opined that AMHS was long established as a unique part of
Alaska's highway system. Further, she emphasized the importance
of optimizing federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN reiterated that Amendment 3 was specific
to the board, not AMHS itself.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said without more time to ensure that no
unintended consequences would ensue from the proposed name
change, she would be opposing Amendment 3. She echoed
Representative Story's sentiments and added that she didn't want
to dilute AMHS's struggle by expanding the board's scope.
3:41:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referenced the cost/benefit framework that
Representative Kaufman had referenced, adding that he didn't
perceive any active harm other than the potential for confusion.
He pointed out that the correlation between AMHS and "highway"
had been instilled in the public's consciousness. He opined
that maintaining the current language would provide the benefit
of clarity; therefore, he respectfully opposed Amendment 3.
3:42:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 3.
3:42:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.4, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 19.65.011 is amended to read:
Sec. 19.65.011. Short-term and comprehensive
[COMPREHENSIVE] long-range plans [PLAN]. The
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, in
consultation with the Alaska Marine Highway Operations
[TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY] Board, shall prepare a
short-term plan and a comprehensive long-range plan
for the development and improvement of the Alaska
marine highway system and shall, in consultation with
the Alaska Marine Highway Operations [TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY] Board, revise and update the short-term plan
annually, and the comprehensive long-range plan at
least every three [FIVE] years. The short-term plan
must describe the means by which effective and
efficient progress toward priorities and goals defined
in the comprehensive long-range plan will be attained.
The comprehensive long-range plan must include
priorities and goals for the Alaska marine highway
system and may recommend performance measures,
including output, efficiency, and effectiveness
measures. The department shall submit both the short-
term and the comprehensive long-range plans [PLAN] and
revisions and updates of the plans [PLAN] to the
legislature and the governor and make the plans
available to the public."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Amendment 4 would create a
hierarchy of plans by aligning a tactical short-term plan with a
strategic long-term plan. He conveyed that the requirement for
a plan in the proposed legislation would be made more
operational with this amendment, such that the board would be
involved in forming the short-term and long-term plans to drive
improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referring to line 11, inquired about the
one-year timeframe for the short-term plan and three-year
timeframe for the long-range plan. She asked what would be
accomplished in that time.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN indicated that the long-range plan was
subject to change because it would be impacted by the short-term
plan. The [three-year] timeframe would offer a beneficial
synchronicity between the two plans, he said.
3:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Amendment 4 and Amendment
10 [which had not been offered yet] both addressed performance
measures. He proposed combining the two amendments by adding
the language from page 2, lines 11-15, of Amendment 10, which
considered goals for fare box recovery, to Amendment 4.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said, as the sponsor of Amendment 10, he
would not be averse to that proposal. In the interest of
process, he suggested that Amendment 4 be considered in
isolation. He noted that given the "profundity" of amendments,
a committee substitute (CS) that incorporated all the [adopted]
amendments would ultimately be created to ensure that there were
no drafting errors, fiscal notes, or constitutional issues. He
proposed that Amendment 10 be set aside and considered at a
later date in relation to the [forthcoming] CS.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concurred.
3:47:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she wanted to be realistic about
expectations. She questioned whether the accelerated timeline
for the long-range plan could be accomplished and whether there
was adequate capacity to complete [the short-term plan] on an
annual basis. She reiterated that she did not want to create
unrealistic expectations that could not be achieved with the
department's available resources.
MR. CARPENTER recognized that [DOT&PF] was limited in personnel
and AMHS was "strapped" trying to maintain system operations.
He speculated that staff from the Office of the Commissioner
could assist the board with these plans, and new personnel could
be added to address these efforts in the future. He
acknowledged that this was a concern, as any administrative
increases would impact the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that previous plans had been
implemented that were multi-year efforts. She pointed out that
if this bill were to pass, it would effectively "benchmark" as
the start date for a new comprehensive long-range plan. She
questioned how much of the three-year timeframe would be
absorbed by drafting versus the implementation/oversight phase.
MR. CARPENTER said Representative Tarr had addressed another
good point. He shared his understanding that previous testimony
had indicated that "a short three-year timeline could be a setup
of continuous planning versus having a plan in place and having
some time to implement it," which could be a concern, he said,
if plans were being constantly developed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that she liked the idea of a short-
term and long-term plan; however, she indicated that the
timeline was concerning for the agency. She explained that
three-years could go by too quickly if the majority of it was
dedicated to drafting.
3:51:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that most endeavors operated with
an annual plan and a multi-year plan. He said the goal would be
to align existing operations around process improvement and
performance improvement. He added that the cadence could always
change in the future if it was burdensome or unworkable. He
conceded that five years could also work; however, he said the
initial idea was to channel expediency to ensure this was
launched [expeditiously].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she appreciated the concerns about the
timeframe; however, in regard to expediency, she suggested that
Alaskans wanted solutions as opposed to a continuous discussion
of plans. She opined that the annual short-term plan would be a
good measure to indicate to Alaskans that the long-range plan
was progressing. Further, she believed that the merits of a
three-year, four-year, or five-year timeframe for the long-range
plan should be discussed further to identify which would be
feasible.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the bill sponsor's opinion on
Amendment 4.
3:54:03 PM
MR. CROCKER stated that a five-year plan was preferred.
Nonetheless, he said he was open to further discussion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recognized that Mr. Carpenter had
identified fiscal impact as a consideration, indicating the
potential for a fiscal note. He said he liked where the
amendment was headed; however, a fiscal note was "a bright red
line," as it could change the outlook for the proposed
legislation. He proposed that given the impending CS,
Representative Kaufman could take a few days to collaborate with
the department on a zero fiscal note outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he would consider a conceptual
amendment if the three-year timeframe lacked support. He
explained that the core utility [of Amendment 4] was to produce
a short-term tactical report that would align with the long-
range strategic plan.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his interest in voting on
Amendment 4 in its current form. He conveyed that if the bill
were to pick up a fiscal note, further amendments could be
considered upon deliberation of the impending CS to ensure that
the proposed legislation left the committee without a fiscal
note.
3:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated her support for the annual plan. She
pointed out that the budget had been delayed in recent years,
which impacted the delivery of state services and led to ferry
cancellations. She indicated that if a similar situation were
to occur, it could be disruptive of a shorter timeline. She
said she would be happy to offer a conceptual amendment if it
was in the interest of the committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether that would be considered a
"friendly" conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied in the affirmative.
3:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 4, such that the deleted language on line 11 would be
reinserted. Effectively, the adoption of the conceptual
amendment would maintain a five-year timeframe for the long-
range plan.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, hearing no objection, announced that the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 4 was adopted. He questioned
whether there was further objection to Amendment 4, as amended.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of a roll call
vote. He invited final comments from the committee on Amendment
4.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his support for the conceptual
amendment and for the flexibility that [Amendment 4] would
provide to the board.
3:58:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Tarr,
Story, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the
adoption of Amendment 4, as amended. No representatives voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 4, as amended, was adopted by
a vote of 6-0.
3:59:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.5, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 2, line 3, following "years.":
Insert "The short-term plan must include a
description of skill or competency gaps in the
membership of the Alaska Marine Highway Operations
Board."
Page 2, line 20, through page 3, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) six public members
(A) who collectively have experience in
enterprise, architecture, business operations,
financial management, risk management, logistics,
supply chain management, engineering, project
management and controls, marine operations, strategy,
regulatory compliance, ship maintenance, construction,
and repair, quality management, continuous
improvement, sales, marketing, communications,
customer interface, or experience management;
(B) two of whom are appointed by the
governor, two of whom are appointed by the speaker of
the house of representatives and who serve at the
pleasure of the speaker of the house of
representatives, and two of whom are appointed by the
president of the senate and who serve at the pleasure
of the president of the senate."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that the purpose of Amendment 5
was to guarantee that the board's composition comprised core
competencies to drive improvement. Amendment 5 added
characteristics that were typical of a high-level enterprise,
such as AMHS, to ensure that the board could make a meaningful
difference.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the bill sponsor's perspective on
the proposed amendment.
MR. CROCKER expressed support for the Amendment 5. He believed
the proposed amendment would strengthen the board by requiring
[that members were equipped with] the necessary skills to
govern.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the DOT&PF's perspective on
Amendment 5.
MR. CARPENTER said the department had no position on Amendment 5
at this time. He inquired about the language regarding the
appointment of board members.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the agency's
position was no position.
MR. CARPENTER indicted that DOT&PF was indifferent in regard to
[lines 1-3] of Amendment 5. He expressed concern about [lines
5-18], which specified "the appointment of members by the
legislature," he said. He referenced a legal memo that spoke to
that concern.
4:02:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification on the language,
such as "marine operations," in proposed subparagraph (A) of
Amendment 5. She observed that the aforementioned language
differed from the language on page 2, lines 22-23 of CSHB
63(TRA) and sought further explanation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that "marine operations" would
encompass much of the existing language in [CSHB 63(TRA)].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she wanted to ensure that the inserted
language in proposed subparagraph (A) wouldn't exclude any
important skillsets that had been included in the deleted
language.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that the intent was to capture
the necessary skills for running a marine operation. He said
the language in Amendment 5 would cover all the essential
requirements.
4:04:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the bill sponsor was
supportive of the language in Amendment 5.
MR. CROCKER restated his support for the proposed amendment,
noting that he had worked with Representative Kaufman to draft
language that mirrored AMHS's organizational charts and
encompassed the board's needs.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. Without further
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
4:05:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.6, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) If the board determines that the Alaska
marine highway system has deviated from a plan,
policy, or procedure described in the short-term plan
or comprehensive long-range plan prepared under
AS 19.65.011, the board may prepare a report
recommending corrective action. The board shall submit
a report prepared under this subsection to the
legislature and the governor and shall make the report
available to the public."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of the discussion.
4:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Amendment 6 would enable
the board to prepare a corrective action report. He noted that
this was a common tool of continuous improvement that was used
throughout the industry. If deviation from the short-term or
long-range plan occurred, the proposed amendment would allow the
board to issue a report recommending corrective action. He
explained that the report would require a technically confident
answer [from AMHS] that would be monitored to ensure that the
solution was implemented.
4:07:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE in an attempt to avoid potential fiscal
notes, proposed a friendly conceptual amendment to Amendment 6
on line 10, such that the board would submit an electronic
report, effectively inserting the word "electronic."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested postponing the conceptual
amendment to allow the bill sponsor and DOT&PF to share their
opinions on Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY appreciated the detail in Amendment 6 and
asked whether it was attempting to implement "good management"
procedures into policy.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred Representative Story's question to
the sponsor of the proposed Amendment and asked the bill sponsor
and DOT&PF to comment on Amendment 6.
4:08:39 PM
MR. CROCKER expressed the bill sponsor's full support for
Amendment 6. He said he was excited at the prospect of the
board being able to report if recommendations were not being
followed.
MR. CARPENTER said the department had no position on Amendment
6. He opined that it was conceptually sound, adding that he was
unsure of its administrative impact.
4:09:48 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:09 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.
4:11:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 6, such that "electronic" would be inserted on line 10
before the word "report" to specify that the board shall submit
an electronic report.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, hearing no objection, announced that the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 6 was adopted. He invited
comments from committee members on Amendment 6, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his understanding that although
corrective action reports were required of other boards, they
were not often followed through on. He believed that putting
this requirement in writing could encourage other boards to act.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. Without further
objection, Amendment 6, as amended, was adopted.
4:13:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt amendment 7, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.7, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 3, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 19.65.120 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) The board shall provide newly appointed
members with information about the board and the
Alaska marine highway system, including information
about the business, operations, and regulatory
obligations of the Alaska marine highway system."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:13:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Amendment 7 would help
onboard members and ensure that new appointments were provided
with a high-level overview [of the board and AMHS]. He said the
purpose was to ensure that new members would be ready to work
and were equipped with any assistance they needed.
MR. CROCKER expressed the bill sponsor's support for the
proposed amendment.
MR. CARPENTER said DOT&PF was not opposed to Amendment 7.
4:15:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked who would provide newly appointed
members with information about the board.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that once the board was
established there would be an "onboarding package" as members
were periodically replaced. He suggested that veterans from the
previous board could help during the initial formation.
4:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. Without further
objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Amendment 8 would not be
offered.
4:16:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.9, Nauman/Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 3, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 19.65.180(d) is amended to read:
(d) The board may receive information from the
department as the board considers necessary to carry
out its duties, and the department shall provide
information requested to the board in a timely and
responsive manner."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:16:57 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 9 would clarify
that the department shall be responsive to the board in a timely
and substantive manner. He said the idea originated from the
circumstance of MTAB [Marine Transportation Advisory Board]
becoming a "lost child" to DOT&PF. He elaborated that there was
not a close advisory or consultative relationship between MTAB
and the department, which the proposed amendment intended to
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether, on line 6, "requested
by the board" would be clearer than "requested to the board."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes.
4:18:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 9, which deleted "to" on line 6 and inserted "by."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, hearing no objection, announced that the
conceptual amendment to amendment 9 was adopted. He asked
whether the bill sponsor had a position on Amendment 9, as
amended.
4:18:29 PM
MR. CROCKER shared the bill sponsor's support for the amendment;
however, he expressed his hope that the concept was already
standard operating procedure for the department.
MR. CARPENTER believed the proposed amendment made sense, adding
that DOT&PF was happy to respond. He opined that with a
representative from the department on the board, information
would be provided in [a timely and responsive] manner.
4:19:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN objected for the purpose of expressing
his support for Amendment 9, as amended. He subsequently
removed his objection. There being no further objection,
Amendment 9, as amended, was adopted.
4:20:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:20:43 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:21:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Amendment 10 would not be
offered given the intersection of Amendment 10 and a previously
adopted amendment [Amendment 4]. He said he intended for the
spirit of Amendment 10 to be considered once the impending CS
was adopted to provide a cleaner process for drafting purposes.
4:21:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 11, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.11, Nauman/Fisher, 4/15/21, which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) The board shall
(1) create and update a proposed strategic
maintenance and vessel replacement plan;
(2) update the plan created under (1) of
this subsection at least every two years;
(3) deliver the plan created under (1) of
this subsection, and each update of the plan under (2)
of this subsection, to
(A) the governor;
(B) the senate secretary and the chief
clerk of the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available; and
(C) the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:21:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 11 would add a new
subsection that created a strategic maintenance and vessel
replacement plan.
MR. CROCKER expressed the bill sponsor's support for the
proposed amendment.
MR. CARPENTER believed that DOT&PF supported the amendment
conceptually. He noted that the department was in the process
of improving maintenance planning efforts for AMHS.
4:23:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether the board was the
right entity to be creating [the strategic maintenance and
vessel plan]; further, he wondered whether "shall" would be
setting exceptionally high expectations that would be a
detriment to recruitment. He opined that DOT&PF or AMHS should
create the plan.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced his intention to set aside
Amendment 11 for later consideration. He said he wanted to
explore its origin and how it may intersect with Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to lines 12-13 and
suggested that the legislature may not want to receive each
update of the plan, as the updates may be numerous and
"microscopic." He recommended that updates be delivered every
two years to provide the board with more latitude.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the content of the amendment
was good, but it could be made more effective.
4:26:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 11.
4:26:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 12, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.12, Bullard/Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) The board may establish a task force that
includes members who are not members of the board and
that is tasked with investigating matters relevant to
the Alaska marine highway system and reporting to the
board. Members of a task force established under this
subsection are not entitled to receive a salary, per
diem, or travel expenses."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
4:26:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 12 outlined the
board's authority to establish a task force that was ancillary
to the core competencies of the board. He noted that the task
force could include members who were not seated on the board
itself.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned whether the authority to
establish such a task force would be delegated equally amongst
board members.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS speculated that a board motion would
suffice. He elaborated that if a majority of members wanted to
appoint a committee to explore marketing opportunities, for
example, the process by which those appointments would occur
would be a motion.
4:28:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of further
discussion on Amendment 12.
MR. CROCKER stated the bill sponsor's support for the proposed
amendment, characterizing it as "excellent."
MR. CARPENTER shared his belief that a similar function existed
for MTAB. He stated that his only concern was the potential
administrative burden.
4:29:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection. Without further
objection, Amendment 12 was adopted.
4:30:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 13, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.13, Bullard/Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "three [FIVE]"
Insert "five"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that Amendment 13 had already been
addressed in a conceptual amendment that was previously adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 13.
4:30:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 14, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.14, Bullard/Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 3, line 6:
Delete "three-year"
Insert "six-year [THREE-YEAR]"
Page 4, line 20:
Delete "one-year"
Insert "two-year"
Page 4, line 23:
Delete "one-year"
Insert "two-year"
Page 4, line 25:
Delete "two-year"
Insert "four-year"
Page 4, line 27:
Delete "three-year"
Insert "six-year"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
4:30:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 14 would change
the term [length] for board members from three years to six
years for continuity and the accruement of knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that a six-year term was a
substantial commitment and believed it would narrow the field of
candidates. She asked whether other boards had lengthy [term
lengths].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referenced the University of Alaska (UA)
Board of Regents, which was composed of six-year terms at
minimum. He added that the length was an intentional vetting
mechanism to identify individuals who were committed to accruing
the knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether those who served on [the UA
Board of Regents] were compensated.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS believed there was no salary or honorarium
associated with service; however, he said they might receive per
diem for travel.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE acknowledged the need for longevity on the
board. Nonetheless, she expressed interest in learning about
the success of other boards with similar tenure.
4:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN understood that the UA Board of Regents
had a one-term limit. Additionally, he noted that the Alaska
Judicial Council had six-year terms as well.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled the difficulty of trying to
encourage people to volunteer for appointment to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) due to the five-year term. He
also observed that it was customary for people not to finish out
their term, which impeded the longevity that the proposed
amendment was attempting to accomplish. He suggested
implementing a shorter initial term and making it easier for
first-time members to be reappointed for a subsequent term.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reflected on school board service, which
entailed two-year and three-year terms. She expounded that
after serving an initial term, people often returned to
contribute the knowledge they gained. She expressed support for
the knowledge and continuity that a longer term would provide.
4:38:27 PM
MR. CROCKER indicated that the bill sponsor was supportive of
Amendment 14. He stated that the continuity it would provide
was a benefit.
MR. CARPENTER said DOT&PF had no stance on the amendment.
4:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his interest in ensuring that
core competencies were consistently present on the board. He
indicated that he would support the proposed amendment upon
receipt of the forthcoming CS.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the comments and concerns and
believed it came down to a policy call. He opined that there
were ways to harmonize Amendment 14 with Representative
Kaufman's comments and [Amendment 5].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that the UA Board of Regents
served eight-year terms and the RCA [Regulatory Commission of
Alaska] served six years, indicating that a six-year term would
not by a-typical.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that AMHS was high on the list
of organizations that incited passion from Alaskans. He opined
that people who were willing to serve would be happy to commit
to a longer term. Additionally, he expressed appreciation for
Representative Eastman's suggestion; however, he indicated that
increased complication could cause confusion and stated his
support for a basic term length. On that basis, he withdrew his
objection to Amendment 14.
4:42:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He inquired about the
frequency of meetings, asking how often the board was expected
to meet.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS replied quarterly. He noted that the
frequency was not included in the bill language. He deferred
the question to Mr. Crocker.
MR. CROCKER believed the statute specified that the board would
meet quarterly. He deferred to Legislative Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether a new [presiding
officer] would have the opportunity to replace board members
with his/her own selections.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked:
My intent is that some presiding officers, speakers,
or presidents, would ... be due for an appointment and
others would not. Not dissimilar, say, to the
reapportionment board [Alaska Redistricting Board] in
the constitution, in that President Geissel and
Speaker Edgmon made those appointments to the
reapportionment board ... they happen to be the
presiding officers when that decadal cycle rolled
around.
4:44:20 PM
MR. FISHER explained that if the bill were to pass, a new
presiding officer wouldn't terminate the appointment of a
currently serving board member, but the board members appointed
by the presiding officers served at the pleasure of the current
presiding officer; therefore, a presiding officer would have the
opportunity to remove one of the members that his/her successor
had appointed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that Representative Eastman had
highlighted a vulnerability in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that members appointed by the
presiding officers should serve terms shorter than six years.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS conveyed his interest in remedying the
"failure" in the amendment and bringing it back [before the
committee]. He invited further comments on the concept of
Amendment 14.
4:45:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that it shouldn't be assumed
that a presiding officer would want to remove an appointment
[made by his/her successor]. She opined that there wasn't
necessarily a "failure" in the amendment but a lack of clear
intent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that even though a presiding
officer may elect not to replace the legislatively appointed
members on the board, his intent was to provide a "political
fire wall" and the certainty of a six-year term. He explained
that a primary idea behind establishing a new board was to
create separation between the annual political forces and the
"machinations" of new [public officials]. He added that he
would want [newly appointed members] to be able to learn without
having to look over their shoulders.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he was reminded of former Senate
President [Cathy Giessel] who advocated that the commissioner of
the Department of Corrections (DOC) should not serve at the
pleasure of the governor; instead, she believed the commissioner
should administrate for a fixed period of time to overcome
"bumps" in the administration. He understood that the much of
criticism of AMHS related to the lack of a long-term plan, which
had been further hindered by administration changes. He opined
that a six-year term was appropriate and that members should not
serve at the pleasure of a presiding officer. Once appointed,
members should serve out the six years, he said, to foster the
longevity that had been lacking in marine highway management.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN remarked:
This discussion is one reason why having ... many of
the core competencies listed and having the ... 'self-
healing' capability ... all works together to be sure
that as the political winds blow as they may - and
they shall - that the competencies remain; that the
board is able to restore its integrity.
4:49:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 14.
4:49:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 15, labeled 32-
LS0286\G.15, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 2, lines 11 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(a) The board is composed of the deputy
commissioner of transportation and public facilities
assigned to the Alaska marine highway system and the
following eight public members, each of whom must be a
resident of the state:"
Page 2, line 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 3, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "head of the division of marine
transportation"
Insert "deputy commissioner of transportation and
public facilities"
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "head of the division of marine
transportation"
Insert "deputy commissioner of transportation and
public facilities"
Page 4, line 28:
Delete "head of the division of marine
transportation"
Insert "deputy commissioner of transportation and
public facilities"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
4:49:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 15 would name the
deputy commissioner of DOT&PF as the department's representative
serving on the board [instead of the head of the division of
marine transportation].
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned what this change would add in
terms of value.
MR. CARPENTER said that it wasn't clear who the head of the
division of marine transportation would be. He noted that if
the head of the division were to be Captain John Falvey, he
would not have the time to serve on the board. He said he
appreciated the intent of Amendment 15 but hoped it could be
broader so that if the deputy commissioner was not available,
someone else could act in his/her stead. He emphasized that in
terms of value added, it came down to available time and agency
hierarchy.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned what would occur if [the
deputy commissioner's position] had not been confirmed and how
that situation might apply to the proposed amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pondered broadening the language to include
"or designee" to encompass interim vacancies.
4:52:02 PM
MR. CROCKER shared his believe that deputy commissioners were
not subject to confirmations. He indicated that the sponsor had
identified that position to be the most appropriate
representative of the department.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN cautioned that including the verbiage "or
designee" could result in the downward delegation of
responsibilities. He advised considering the level of designee
to avoid losing effectiveness.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her hope that the department's
representative would be the person who was responsible for
carrying out the board's plans and recommendations. She
stressed the importance of identifying who would be able to
convey [the board's message with authority].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that the representative should be an
authoritative position within the agency.
4:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concurred with Representative Story's
comments and expressed her support conceptually. Further, she
encouraged the flexibility of allowing the commissioner [of
DOT&PF} to be involved, so that the deputy commissioner would
have more latitude. She said she also wanted more insight on
whether the deputy commissioner was the most appropriate person
for this role.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his understanding that a number of
departments had more than one deputy. He indicated that it
could be ambiguous if DOT&PF were to also have more than one
deputy in the future.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, as the sponsor of Amendment 15, assured
committee members that he would pursue the aforementioned
comments and upon receipt of a revised CS, consider additional
amendments to satisfy existing concerns.
4:56:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 15 was adopted.
4:56:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt [Amendment 16], labeled 32-
LS0286\G.18, Fisher, 4/14/21, which read:
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 19.05.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 19.05.030. Duties of department. The
department has the following duties:
(1) direct approved highway planning and
construction and maintenance, protection and control
of highways;
(2) employ assistants and employees;
(3) certify and approve vouchers;
(4) provide a program of highway research;
(5) prepare a budget;
(6) review the annual highway program;
(7) develop and implement an avalanche
control plan to protect persons who use public
highways;
(8) review and respond to recommendations
regarding the statewide transportation improvement
program that are made by the Alaska Marine Highway
Operations Board established under AS 19.65.110."
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) The board shall annually submit
recommendations to the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities regarding the preparation of the
statewide transportation improvement program."
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 4, line 19:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 5, line 1:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected
4:57:15 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that [Amendment 16] would grant
the board with an "enfranchised voice" in the STIP [statewide
transportation improvement program] process, which was how
DOT&PF determined where state and federal transportation dollars
would flow. Additionally, the proposed amendment would ensure a
two-way dialogue between the agency and the board.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the statewide
transportation improvement program and asked whether that was
something the board would create or a program that already
existed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered the latter. He conveyed that the
STIP was an extant process that DOT&PF periodically reviewed.
He noted that it included funding priorities for AMHS;
therefore, the proposed amendment would allow the board to
comment on that in a more enfranchised way.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested including a requirement
regarding the production of the STIP to supplement the added
language in the proposed amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suspected that the STIP was addressed in
other statutes or regulations. He asked Mr. Carpenter whether
maintenance of the STIP was codified elsewhere.
MR. CARPENTER believed it was mentioned in statute; however, he
was not sure of the details. He surmised that it could be
implied in paragraph (6) of Section 1 [AS 19.05.030], which
specified: "review the annual highway program". He expounded
that the STIP was a required planning document to access all
federal highway funding. Regarding the language in Amendment
16, he said the department reviewed and responded to all public
input regarding the development of the STIP.
MR. FISHER, in response to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins, offered his
understanding that the STIP was mentioned in 1965 with respect
to the use of certain funds; however, the actual development of
the STIP was not referenced in statute. He agreed with Mr.
Carpenter's characterization of the program in that it was
something that DOT&PF developed for the purpose of obtaining
federal funds. He believed it existed under the general duties
of the department to administer the highway system, which
included developing the STIP to access the funding.
5:02:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether participation in the
STIP process or accessing the accompanying information was
limited by federal regulations.
MR. CARPENTER sought to determine whether Representative Eastman
had asked if there were limitations to the public process from
the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied in the affirmative. He
questioned how the board would be accessing current information
pertaining to the STIP and whether municipal transit authorities
could participate more in the STIP process than a member of the
public.
MR. CARPENTER understood that a municipal planning organization
(MPO) had the same opportunity as the general public to offer
comment. He said the STIP was publicized for review for a
minimum of 30 days; additionally, during development, the
department would reach out to boards, regional organizations,
and AMHS to gather input. He explained that receiving
advisement or recommendation from the new board would
essentially be normal procedure.
5:05:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for DOT&PF's position on the proposed
amendment.
MR. CARPENTER indicated that this was normal procedure for the
department, so it wouldn't be problematic.
MR. CROCKER expressed the bill sponsor's support for board's
ability to respond to recommendations regarding the STIP.
5:05:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, [Amendment 16] was adopted.
5:06:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt [Amendment 17], labeled 32-
LS0286\G.20, Fisher, 4/15/21, which read:
Page 3, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 19.65.120 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) A regional development organization,
including a regional development organization that
represents a region of the state that contains a
community dependent on the Alaska marine highway
system, may recommend a person for appointment to fill
a vacancy on the board under (a)(2) - (6) of this
section. An appointing authority shall consider the
recommendation of the regional development
organization but is not required to appoint the person
recommended by the regional development organization.
In this subsection, "regional development
organization" means a nonprofit organization or
nonprofit corporation formed to encourage economic
development within a particular region of the state
that includes the entire area of each municipality
within that region and that has a board of directors
that represents the region's economic, political, and
social interests."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
5:06:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that [regional development
organizations] were being removed from Alaska statute and would
no longer receive state funding due to legislative action from
several years ago. He articulated that [Amendment 17]
incorporated the statutory language that would be otherwise
deleted, which defined "regional development organization."
The proposed amendment also specified that a regional
development organization may recommend a candidate for the
appointing authority's consideration to fill a vacancy on the
board. The idea, he said, was to establish a relationship with
the ferry-dependent communities and the organizations that
represent them. He noted that the appointing authorities were
not required to appoint the recommended people put forward by
the regional development organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify whether any nonprofit
organization that formed for the purpose [of economic
development] would qualify. He questioned what would happen if
a region had more than one economic development organization.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that in its current form, the
proposed amendment would allow any organization that fit the
relatively broad definition of "regional development
organization" to recommend a candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many regional development
organizations existed in Alaska and what regions they
represented.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was unsure of the exact number. He
understood that they broadly reflected the regional structure of
Native corporations. He guessed that there were between 8-11
regional development organizations in Alaska and at least one in
each costal region, including the Kenai Peninsula, Southwest
Alaska/Gulf Coast, and Southeast Alaska.
5:11:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether "regional" was defined in
statute.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the proposed amendment was not
intended to be exclusive. He explained that the language
referenced regional development organizations but could
technically encompass many organizations, all of which would be
welcome to recommend a candidate if they wished.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN acknowledged the need to respect
regionality; however, he asserted that his goal was to obtain
ultimate competency [on the board] and expressed his hope that
all future actions would revolve around developing strong core
competencies.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that if the presiding officers
did not have significant access to coastal Alaska, regional
development organizations would be motivated to put forward the
most competent individuals for consideration. He said the
proposed amendment was aligned with Representative Kaufman's
comments.
5:13:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that the Kenai Peninsula
Economic Development District (KPEDD) provided substantial data
on the regional economy; further, the organization stayed active
and engaged with the local government and local businesses. She
indicated that KPEDD would be able to identify key players who
could speak to the issues and provide necessary expertise, which
would ultimately benefit the board and add value.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS fully concurred.
5:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN claimed that the proposed amendment would
exclude regional development organizations that did not
represent a ferry-dependent region.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected to clarify that the proposed
amendment was specifically drafted to be inclusive of all
regional development organizations in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his belief that the language
was preferential to communities that were dependent on AMHS. He
opined that the language should be inclusive as possible and
recommended deleting: "including a regional development
organization that represents a region of the state that contains
a community dependent on the Alaska marine highway system".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said, "We may have to agree to disagree."
He believed the language clearly included all regional
development organizations, later noting that it was common sense
that those representing ferry-dependent communities would be
more motivated to participate.
5:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the language on lines 4-6 of
the proposed amendment emphasized coastal communities serviced
by AMHS but was not exclusive or restrictive.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
5:20:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Tarr,
Story, Vance, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the adoption
of [Amendment 17]. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, [Amendment 17] was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
5:21:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that she had withdrawn Amendment 2
with hopes that it would be reconsidered.
5:21:25 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:21:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that several amendments had
been [withdrawn or] set aside. He explained that his intent was
to reconsider the outstanding amendments upon drafting a CS that
incorporated all the adopted amendments.
[HB 63 was held over.]