Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB21 | |
| HB127 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act clarifying that the Alaska Bar Association is
an agency for purposes of investigations by the
ombudsman; relating to compensation of the ombudsman
and to employment of staff by the ombudsman under
personal service contracts; providing that certain
records of communications between the ombudsman and an
agency are not public records; relating to disclosure
by an agency to the ombudsman of communications
subject to attorney-client and attorney work-product
privileges; relating to informal and formal reports of
opinions and recommendations issued by the ombudsman;
relating to the privilege of the ombudsman not to
testify and creating a privilege under which the
ombudsman is not required to disclose certain
documents; relating to procedures for procurement by
the ombudsman; relating to the definition of 'agency'
for purposes of the Ombudsman Act and providing
jurisdiction of the ombudsman over persons providing
certain services to the state by contract; and
amending Rules 501 and 503, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
9:14:15 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted his successful effort in determining
a lack of objection to the legislation from the Office of
Victims' Rights.
Co-Chair Austerman informed the committee that the bill's
sponsor was the House Rules Committee by request. He
wondered who requested the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the Office of the Ombudsman
requested the bill.
9:15:16 AM
Representative Costello discussed the bill's four zero
fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the agency existed in the
legislature's budget.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about page 2, lines 9 and 10. He
discussed the confidential negotiations with the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC). He asked if the
ombudsman's office would have access to the state agency's
records of the confidential hearings.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he did not know the answer.
Representative Thompson echoed the concerns of Vice-Chair
Neuman. He wondered if the agency's authority was too
broad.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would hold the bill until
the concerns of the members could be alleviated.
[Note: Further discussion and action on CSHB 127 (JUD) can
be found later in this meeting.]
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act clarifying that the Alaska Bar Association is
an agency for purposes of investigations by the
ombudsman; relating to compensation of the ombudsman
and to employment of staff by the ombudsman under
personal service contracts; providing that certain
records of communications between the ombudsman and an
agency are not public records; relating to disclosure
by an agency to the ombudsman of communications
subject to attorney-client and attorney work-product
privileges; relating to informal and formal reports of
opinions and recommendations issued by the ombudsman;
relating to the privilege of the ombudsman not to
testify and creating a privilege under which the
ombudsman is not required to disclose certain
documents; relating to procedures for procurement by
the ombudsman; relating to the definition of 'agency'
for purposes of the Ombudsman Act and providing
jurisdiction of the ombudsman over persons providing
certain services to the state by contract; and
amending Rules 501 and 503, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
10:00:56 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed HB 127. He acknowledged that the
testifiers were online to speak about the bill.
LINDA LORD-JENKINS, STATE OMBUDSMAN, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that she was available.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about page 2, paragraph 4, section
3 related to records for every state agency.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the bill stated "every
agency" as opposed to "every state agency."
Ms. Lord-Jenkins deferred the question to Ms. Leibowitz.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested an opinion about the policy's
intent from Ms. Lord-Jenkins.
Ms. Lord-Jenkins replied that the policy intended to have
the statute conform to other provisions allowing access to
information from investigated agencies. She noted that the
"state agency proviso" would limit the reach. She mentioned
other limited records that were not accessible.
10:03:53 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked which agencies were reviewed. He
wondered the scope of the ombudsman's abilities during a
complaint. He mentioned that some municipalities had
considered property taxes related to the gas line. He
wondered if a complaint from a municipality would yield the
ability for the ombudsman to review confidential gas line
materials.
Ms. Lord-Jenkins replied that the ombudsman had statutory
authority to review each agency of the state government
regarding the gas line issues and individual community
concerns. She admitted that her office was more apt to view
citizen complaints. She stated that individual communities
would be better rectified in a court of law. The ombudsman
could not force an agency to pay a fine or compensation to
an aggrieved party.
10:06:31 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the ombudsman's ability to
review terms by the Legislative Budget and Audit division.
He wondered if a complaint related to the appropriate
nature of building contracts could be reviewed by the
ombudsman.
Ms. Lord-Jenkins interpreted the statute to allow the
investigation of legislative agencies with the exemption of
the Office of Victims' Rights. She mentioned occasional
complaints related to legislative agencies and aides. She
interpreted that the ombudsman would have access to the
mentioned contracts as would the Legislative Council.
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to section 6, page 3 and "the
procedure shall be followed by the office in a
professional." He asked if the section referred to all
state agencies.
BETH LEIBOWITZ, OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN, JUNEAU (via
teleconference) requested question clarification. She
stated that section 6 addressed procurement for the
ombudsman office.
Vice-Chair Neuman understood. He asked about the authority
related to the terms "otherwise erroneous."
10:10:22 AM
Ms. Leibowitz replied that "otherwise erroneous" was a
catch-all category that was rarely used. She mentioned the
other appropriate terms related to complaints such as
"arbitrary, oppressive, unfair, and contrary to law."
Co-Chair Stoltze did not disagree with the bill. He opined
that the legislation included good policy provisions. He
noted that the fiscal notes were discussed earlier in the
meeting.
10:11:36 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 127 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 127 (JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new zero fiscal notes
from the Department of Administration, one new zero fiscal
note from the Legislature and one new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Corrections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 278 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-GH2716-G.pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 Summary of Changes HB 278 - CS(FIN).pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 278 |