Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/04/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: | |
| HB83 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 65-LEG./PUB. OFFICIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
1:48:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act relating to the disclosure of
financial information by persons who are subject to the
Legislative Ethics Act and by certain public officers, public
employees, and candidates for public office." [Before the
committee was CSHB 65(STA).]
1:48:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as prime sponsor said that originally the bill was intended to
change the [deadline] of the public official financial
disclosures (POFD) which are required to be filed. He explained
all public officials, whether in the state legislature, or local
governments, or boards and commissions, must file full
disclosures of their financial transactions of the previous
year. He extended that the bill takes no issue with the
substance of those filings, but rather that, under statute, the
disclosures are due on March 15. Originally, the bill moved the
date back to after the date of an individual's federal income
tax filing requirement. He opined that this would allow
individuals with complex financial situations to file an
accurate and comprehensive report within the same time frame as
they are required by federal statute to have their income tax
returns completed, without an extension. He stated that the
House State Affairs Standing Committee agreed with idea but said
the April 30 date was a little quick and moved the date to May
15. He explained that the crux of the bill would change the
annual filing dates for legislative financial disclosures and
public official's financial disclosure statements from March 15
to May 15, of each year.
1:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted further changes in the bill with
regard to professionals, such as attorneys, doctors,
accountants, engineers, architects, or independent nurses with a
multitude of clients and are required to disclose all of their
clients and revenues. He further noted that attorneys can claim
attorney-client privilege, and there are accountants who will
not allow individuals to disclose their client base, and the
amount they are being paid. Therefore, through regulatory
activity the APOC has allowed them to not disclose those
clients, he said. Statutorily, he stated that the language in
the bill makes it very clear that a public official public
disclosure filer could be exempted from disclosing information
if that information is either confidential by law or would
adversely affect the individual's ability to conduct business.
The bill then sets up the standard to weigh the potential harm
to the person comparing it to the public's interest in obtaining
that information, he related.
1:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER continued that two provisions were brought
forward by the APOC itself, which includes various reporting
requirements as it relates to different individuals residing in
different communities of different size. He said the sponsor
has no opinion on the APOC request.
1:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concluded that the APOC recommended an
increase in population from 5,000 to 15,000, and it appears that
the sponsor is neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated he has no opinion on that subject.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded to Representative Claman that in
the interest of accommodating the concerns of the APOC, the
sponsor does not object to include its request in this bill
knowing it would go through the legislative process and on
various committees with the opportunity to discuss it with the
APOC.
1:53:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the waiver of disclosing
clients is one that professionals, such as, lawyers, doctors,
nurses would have to make a special request for the waiver as it
would not automatically apply.
JULIE LUCKY, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker, Alaska State
Legislature, responded to Representative Claman that there is
currently a waiver process where the person does put forth a
letter to the APOC and the person is granted a waiver from
disclosure. She opined that the reporting reads, instead of
naming address of client it will now say "protected by HIPPA, or
attorney-client privilege, or some notation" regarding the
information is not being disclosed.
1:55:04 PM
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, responded to
Representative Claman that the bill puts the process into
statute rather than solely in regulation and it would not change
the process of the APOC "much at all, if at all." He noted an
earlier comment of individual granted a waiver or exemption for
reporting all of their clients, the individual can report the
aggregate amount and not refer to the clients; others report the
clients in an abbreviated manner, and eliminate identifying
information, and list the income.
1:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if there is a formal request lawyers
and doctors and write to the APOC, or simply make the claim on
their form.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that in general, individuals requesting
the exemption write to the APOC and explain their situation, and
the APOC goes from there.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony
1:57:33 PM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated the
committee substitute changes the population figures to now
require municipalities between the population count of 5,000 and
15,000, to file electronically. The Alaska Municipal League
(AML) had not heard from the APOC that the change was coming as
no one called any of the clerks involved. She said she does not
have the list of municipalities that have opted out, but without
that list it affects 12 different communities. While it may not
be a stretch to require electronic filing in the larger
communities, but places such as Bethel it becomes more
difficult, she noted. She related that many of the clerks do
have people filing by paper. She maintained she was told by an
individual at the APOC this was requested by the clerks in order
to allow them more time because it required [a certain amount
of] their time. She referred to AS 39.50.020(b), which read:
(b) A public official or former public official other
than an elected or appointed municipal officer shall
file the statement with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission. Candidates for the office of governor and
lieutenant governor and, if the candidate is not
subject to AS 24.60, the legislature shall file the
statement under AS 15.25.030 or 15.25.180. Municipal
officers, former municipal officers, and candidates
for elective municipal office, shall file with the
municipal clerk or other municipal official designated
to receive their filing for office. All statements
required to be filed under this chapter are public
records.
MS. WASSERMAN continued her testimony and stated that this does
not save the clerks' time as they still must get a paper copy on
file in their office. She opined that in the future when the
APOC desires changing rules that it talk to the clerks, or to
the municipalities. She expressed that AML is opposed to that
section of the bill and would like that portion removed,
otherwise AML does not have a problem with the bill.
2:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Wasserman is testifying
as a representative of the AML.
MS. WASSERMAN answered in the affirmative.
2:01:34 PM
MS. WASSERMAN reiterated to Representative Claman that other
than the above portion, AML has no problem with the bill at all.
She directed that she discussed the bill with the clerks who "in
theory" had requested this, and they said "they had not."
2:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification that if the
committee does not put the amendment in as an option, AML is
happy with the bill.
MS. WASSERMAN stated that AML is not happy with the bill that
states communities between 5,000 and 15,000 should be included.
2:02:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned Mr. Dauphinais where he received the
idea of changing the numbers for the municipalities to the
15,000 level.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that over the last couple of years,
both he and his staff have given a number of trainings and
presentations. He remarked were approached several times by
clerks requesting a manner their filers could file
electronically. He opined that if they have since changed their
mind, the APOC has no problem with that portion of the bill
being removed, and he apologized to the sponsor.
2:03:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX verified that he did not check with the clerks
recently.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "That is correct."
2:03:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that from the standpoint of the
APOC, whether the 5,000 to 15,000 has any impact in terms of
doing business.
MR. DAUPHINAIS relayed that it would not change the way the APOC
does business at all and it is completely cost neutral.
2:04:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered that as the law currently stands, an
individual who is not required to file electronically wishes to
file electronically, whether they are precluded from filing
electronically.
MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "No, they are not," as anyone can file
electronically.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she was having a problem understanding why
then the clerks would have approached him to change the numbers
if individuals were already allowed to file electronically.
MR. DAUPHINAIS offered that the clerks told him it was quite
bothersome for them in that they had to maintain a stack of
forms, and give them out to the filers and later collect them,
and later give them to the APOC in some manner. When filers
file electronically, they are already filed with the APOC and
[print] the copy and give it to the clerk, or the clerk can
print a copy. He offered that Ms. Wasserman was correct in that
the municipal clerk is the custodial of the record.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that her confusion is if the individuals
are able to file electronically without changing the rules, then
they really didn't have to keep ... she said she did not see why
it would have been burdensome to the clerks.
2:06:17 PM
MS. WASSERMAN responded to Representative Foster that she did
not mean to just zero in on Bethel as her records showed that 12
communities were involved and related that electronic filing
will be much more difficult in the Northwest Artic Borough or in
the North Slope Borough.
2:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 29-
LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, which read:
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "5,000"
Insert "15,000"
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "[15,000]"
Page 5, line 10:
Delete "5,000"
Insert "15,000"
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "may [15,000 SHALL]"
Insert "shall"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected and stated that after listening
to the testimony he did not believe the bill should be amended
to change the number from 5,000 to 15,000, as the clerks
affected are content with 5,000.
2:08:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08:27 to 2:10:06 p.m.
2:10:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked for clarification that the committee
would be adopting the 15,000 number.
2:11:00 PM
MS. LUCKY explained that the current statute has a threshold of
a community with a population of 15,000 wherein those municipal
officers currently can choose to paper file, or electronic file.
She opined that a great number of those people do choose to
electronic file, which is allowed under current law. During the
House State Affairs Standing Committee hearing, an amendment was
adopted to drop the threshold to 5,000. She advised that the
sponsor has heard from AML and a few of the boroughs that they
are concerned with that change. She explained that Amendment 1
would leave the status quo in the statute. She further
explained that there would be no change to the current threshold
which is a municipality with a population of 15,000 or fewer,
and would still have the option of either paper filing or filing
electronically.
2:12:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX [treating the objection as withdrawn] said
Amendment 1 passes.
2:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 65, Version 29-
LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 65(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:13:12 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB065 v N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Supporting Documents - Letter Jon Cook 2-2-2015.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Summary of Changes ver A to ver N.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-2-2-021315-LEG-N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-1-2-021315-ADM-N.PDF |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Documents - POFD-LFD Template.pdf |
HJUD 3/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 65 |