Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB97 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB167 | |
| HB90 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to performance reviews, audits, and
termination of executive and legislative branch
agencies, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska
Court System."
2:53:15 PM
Representative Wilson noted that 31 House members and 14
Senators had cosponsored the original legislation. She
requested further discussion before the bill reported out
of committee and thought the performance reviews had some
merit. She wanted clarification that the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) performance reviews
identified $2 million savings.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX,
deferred to Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor, Alaska
Division of Legislative Audit to respond to the question
and noted that she was not available to testify.
Representative Wilson requested a subcommittee to examine
the issue further. She suggested that Ms. Curtis had
suggested ways to fix the problem, decrease the cost of the
reviews, and still result in the desired outcome. She
reminded the committee that the original legislation passed
with bipartisan support.
Co-Chair Foster asked for more input from other members
whether to report the bill out of committee or place it in
a subcommittee for further discussions.
2:56:59 PM
Co-Chair Seaton noted that the sponsor of the original
legislation, HB 30 (State Agency Performance Audits)
[CHAPTER 19 SLA 13 - 05/28/2013] Representative Mike
Chenault was on a subcommittee that recommended repealing
the legislation. At present, he felt that proceeding with
the program that was unfunded for the previous two sessions
and that the legislature had already decided was not worth
continuing was the correct course of action. He recounted
that the previous legislature left the program unfunded
predicated on the results that were not worth the half a
million dollar cost each year. He preferred to vote on the
bill. He suggested addressing a particular agency's
performance in question via specific legislation.
2:59:28 PM
Representative Tilton remembered that Kris Curtis
identified one challenge with the legislature implementing
the recommendations from the reviews. She recalled that Ms.
Curtis reported on one recommendation that would save
approximately $1 million in the DHSS budget. She relayed
her previous experience as a House Finance Committee
staffer handling the DHSS budget when she undertook an
internal review. She emphasized how helpful the performance
audit review would had been if available at the time in
enhanced understanding resulting in better outcomes and
better decisions. She mentioned the overwhelming support
for the original bill. She suggested examining the
completed reviews further over the interim to discover
further savings.
Representative Kawasaki reported having been a co-sponsor
of the original legislation. He commented that the way the
bill was presented and "envisioned" was different than the
actual outcome of the reviews that were completed. He noted
the necessity for the 3 full-time positions and $1 million
dollar cost to move forward with program. He supported
moving HB 167 out of committee.
Vice-Chair Gara reported that a provision in the original
bill tasked the audit with finding 10 percent or more of
efficiencies in an agencies budget. Next year, the bill
listed the University Of Alaska as the recipient of a
performance audit. He communicated that the University had
$50 million to $72 million in proposed cuts in the current
fiscal year alone. The legislature had already cut roughly
$600 million from agencies. He acknowledged that the DHSS
audit identified a $1 million cut to the DHSS budget but
was not scheduled to receive another review for ten years
and the DHSS budget was cut $200 million since passage of
the bill. The goal of the original bill was to begin
finding cuts. The legislature had already identified cuts
that totaled $3.4 billion in all departments. He did not
see the logic in continuing the reviews on the drawn out
schedule by each individual agency to identify 10 percent
in cuts. He concluded that the legislature was cutting all
department's budgets and the bill was unnecessary.
3:04:39 PM
Representative Pruitt voiced that Representative Wilson's
request was appropriate. He had found some very interesting
information in some of the audits from the past. He agreed
that in the current year it was appropriate to abstain from
an audit due to costs and with the exercise of removing
programs "from the books" if warranted. He believed that
the performance review program should be reformed. He
advocated for further consideration of the performance
audit program over the interim and felt that the program
was a useful tool that could bring value in the future. He
promoted modernizing the program instead of eliminating it.
3:08:12 PM
Representative Thompson believed that "it was always good
to review performance." However, the legislature had
reduced budgets and identified efficiencies. He wondered
about the workload and burden the program created for
legislative audit and the departments under review. He
favored the concept of a performance review but had mixed
feelings about whether or not to support the bill. He
suggested reviewing the program over the interim to
determine how to proceed.
Representative Guttenberg liked the performance audit as a
tool but surmised that the reviews worked only if the
department was "static." He did not see the value currently
because there had already been cuts resulting in a
significant amount of transition and reorganization in each
agency. He mentioned that missions and measures was an
established tool that offered agency analysis. He suggested
that additional audits could be funded in the future. Due
to the state's current fiscal condition, he wanted to
cancel the program. He mentioned that keeping the program
in statute but not funding it caused instability and
uncertainty for legislative audit. He supported moving the
bill out of committee.
3:12:27 PM
Representative Wilson wanted to understand the difference
in rescinding the program today versus waiting until next
year. She noted that Ms. Curtis provided a review with 12
suggestions. She thought that requiring board audits held
boards at higher standards than the agencies. She was
asking whether it was worth "taking the program off of the
books at present or waiting until next January and further
examine the issue. She thought the audits provided an
opportunity for agencies to determine whether its mission
was met. She reiterated her request to reexamine whether
the program, in total or in part, was beneficial.
Co-Chair Seaton reminded the committee that Ms. Curtis
testified her need to hire 3 manager positions to manage
contracts to continue with the reviews. The disruptions to
the department the audits caused were "significant"
especially due to budget cutting measures. He deduced that
altering the program required additional legislation. He
remarked that the legislature could require an agency audit
if a problem was identified and noted that audits and
performance reviews were different. He stressed that a
better way to proceed was to address a targeted problem and
not reform an unproductive system. He reiterated his desire
to report the bill out of committee.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that members had "good arguments"
on both sides of the issue. He believed that a vote was the
best course of action.
Vice-Chair Gara reported on the fiscal note FN 1(LEG) with
zero fiscal impact.
3:17:53 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 167 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
HB 167 was REPORTED OUT of Committee with an "amend"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note by the
Legislature.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| REAL ID Act - Transmittal Letter - Rep. Edgmon.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| CS HB 74 (STA) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| SB97 Sponsor Statement 04.08.2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB97 Sectional Analysis ver D 04.08.2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| HB150 Additional Document - 2017 Military Pay Chart 3.14.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 150 |
| HB150 Additional Document-Sockeye Fire Spreadsheet from DMVA 3.14.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 150 |
| HB150 Sponsor Statement 3.14.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 150 |
| HB150 Supporting Document-Letter DMVA 3.14.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 150 |
| HB 74 HFIN DPS Regarding REAL ID -signed.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| CSHB 74 House Finance REAL ID Presentation 4.19 FINAL v2.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 90 - Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 90 |
| HB 90 Testimony Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 90 |