Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/06/2024 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB55 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act establishing a violation for hindering the
Alaska Sunset Commission; relating to the duties of
the legislature; establishing the Alaska Sunset
Commission to review and make recommendations on
discontinuation of or changes to state entities;
relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Sunset
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
9:53:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
KENDRA BROUSSARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER,
introduced herself.
Representative Carpenter introduced the PowerPoint
presentation "HB 190 Alaska Sunset Commission" dated May 6,
2024 (copy on file). He opined that the commission should
be important to all legislators. He assumed that all
established legislators had been impacted by the Alaska
Sunset Commission (ASC). He had not seen much movement in
the process improvement area of state government and he had
heard from various agencies that there needed to be policy
changes if the legislature wanted the agencies to become
more efficient and less costly. The commission combined
several efforts that had been occurring within the
legislature. The commission was not a new concept and there
were similar commissions in other states, such as Texas. He
noted that he had modeled ASC after the Texas Sunset
Commission. Other states also had similar commissions, such
as Florida, Minnesota, California, and Illinois.
Representative Carpenter relayed that his goal was process
improvement. He explained that Texas created its commission
underneath the lieutenant governor for administrative
purposes and hired seven members to serve on the
commission. The members were appointed by the governor and
the legislature and served five-year terms on a staggered
schedule. The members were statutorily required to have
experience in management, budget process improvement,
organizational improvement, and policy improvement. He
explained that the commission would hire additional staff
who had similar expertise and would have the authority to
retain legal counsel and other consultants as necessary.
The commission was tasked with conducting a one-year review
of each administration, department, and entity within the
government. He noted that the review would likely be time-
consuming. The commission would do a deep dive and provide
recommendations to the legislature.
9:57:30 AM
Representative Carpenter explained that ACS would provide a
report to the legislature and to the governor that would
include recommendations and any necessary legislation to
improve the state government. If the legislation that was
put forward was ignored by the legislature, then the entity
would sunset the following year. He thought the consequence
was necessary to ensure that legislators were invested in
the reports. He relayed that the legislative audit team
produced performance reports in the past that had a similar
goal as the performance reports proposed in the bill, but
the reports were no longer produced. The performance
reports had been largely ignored by the legislature in the
past. There was no requirement for committees to take
action on the reports and time and money were wasted.
Representative Carpenter added that the state also had
executive branch initiatives that focused on improving the
state government, but he did not think that the initiates
were detailed enough. He relayed that ASC had a fiscal note
of about $1.2 million due to the cost of hiring staff. He
explained that page 6 of the bill listed the criteria that
ACS would review. The commission would determine to what
extent the missions established under statute were being
carried out and whether performance measurements were being
met. The commission would evaluate the following criteria:
was there an alternative method of delivery of service that
would better meet requirements, was each entity organized
in a manner that was conducive to process improvement, to
what extent could each process improvement benefit each
entity, how efficient was each of the entities, was there
an overlap in service, and to what extent was each entity
making it difficult for individuals to do business within
the state. He thought the questions would help the
commission identify whether the money that was appropriated
to the state government was being spent wisely and whether
the public was receiving enough communication from the
government. He did not think the legislature had the
capacity to do a deep dive into all of the state's
organizations during the legislative session and understand
what needed to change. He thought an independent analysis
was necessary. He turned to his staff to give the
presentation.
10:01:55 AM
Ms. Broussard began the presentation on slide 2:
The Sunset shines a light on state agencies and
programs to see if they are still relevant in a
changing world. If the answer is yes, the Sunset
recommends improvements to make them more effective
and efficient. If the answer is no, the sunset
recommends abolishing the agency or transferring its
functions to another agency with related functions.
Ms. Broussard continued on slide 3:
The Commission would be administratively housed under
the Lt. Governor. Commissioners will be appointed by
the Governor, Speaker, and Senate President.
The Commission shall be proficient in financial
management, business operations, budgeting economics,
process improvement or government efficiency.
The Commission may hire staff and consultants with
similar proficiencies to conduct a review of each
entity of a Department
HB 190 would Require the Commission to hold public
hearings; at least one on the road system for each
entity reviewed.
The Commission drafts legislation that must be acted
upon or the entity will sunset.
Ms. Broussard advanced to slide 4:
Sunset Staff Evaluation
Each year, the Commission will review one state
department and each of its entities: divisions
and corporations. Sunset staff will perform
extensive research and analysis to evaluate the
need for, performance for, and improvements to
the entity under review.
Sunset Commission Staff
o Reviews the agency's self-evaluation report
o Receives input from interested parties
o Evaluates entity and identifies problems
o Develops recommendations
o Publishes staff reports
Sunset Commission Deliberation
The Sunset Commission conducts a public hearing
to take testimony on the staff report and the
agency overall. The Sunset Commission conducts a
second meeting to vote on which changes to
recommend to the Legislature.
10:03:53 AM
Representative Carpenter added that in the past, the
performance reviews had a limited perspective. Under the
proposed bill, the agencies would provide a self-assessment
to the commission. The commission could choose to evaluate
an agency in more detail and a public process would occur
and result in recommendations from the commission. He
offered assurance that it would be a public process with
statutory buy-ins from the administration to help an entity
evaluate itself and improve.
Ms. Broussard continued on slide 5:
Public Hearings
o Sunset staff presents its reports and
recommendations
o The agency presents its response
o The Sunset Commission will hear public
testimony and receive written comments
o The Sunset Commission will meet again to
consider and vote on recommendations
o Public Input is published on the website
o The Sunset bills will go through the normal
legislative process
Legislative Action
o The Sunset bill on an entity is drafted and
submitted through the Rules Committee
o The Legislature will consider the Sunset
Commission's recommendations and make its
final decisions
o The Senate and the House conduct committee
hearings and debate/Amend the bill
o Bill passes or fails adoption
o If the Legislature fails to adopt or act on
a bill, the entity sunsets at the end of the
following fiscal year.
Ms. Broussard advanced to slide 6:
The sunset process is a key legislative oversight tool
that significantly streamlined and improved Texas
government since it was created by the Texas
Legislature in 1977. Sunset promotes a culture of
continuous improvement in state government by
providing objective, nonpartisan public forum for
evaluating the need for state agencies and their
effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness to the
public.
Ms. Broussard continued on slide 7:
th
The Sunset Commission reviewed 21 entities for the 88
Legislative Session in Texas, resulting in 235
recommendations to streamline state government while
enhancing services to our citizens. Generally, the
recommendations eliminate unnecessary regulations, and
improve accountability, align agencies' procedures
with best practices, and strengthen effective delivery
of services to Texans.
10:06:39 AM
Representative Carpenter noted that he chose not to invite
testifiers for the bill due to time constraints, but
members could watch past bill hearings in the House State
Affairs Committee to hear invited testimony on the bill.
Ms. Broussard continued on slide 8:
The Texas Sunset process has led to major policy
changes in almost every area of state government.
Sunset recommendations also have eliminated
duplication among agencies and programs, increased
public participation, helped with government
accountability, and improved the quality and
efficiency of government services.
Ms. Broussard continued on slide 9:
Streamlining Texas Government
o 42 entities and programs have been abolished
o 52 entities and programs have been abolished and
transferred or consolidated
Saving Taxpayer money
o $1 billion in state and federal savings and
revenue gains
o Return of $18 for every $1 appropriated to the
Sunset Commission since 1985
Providing Effective Oversight
o 570 reviews of state agencies and programs
conducted
o 80 percent of Sunset recommendations to the
Legislature have become state law since 2001
Ms. Broussard continued to slide 10 and explained that
Alaska had 16 departments with 180 entities housed
underneath the departments.
10:08:02 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
10:08:47 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Carpenter how to find
invited testimony that had occurred in a previous
committee.
Representative Carpenter explained that House State Affairs
met on March 12, 2024, to discuss the bill.
Representative Stapp remarked that he liked the bill. He
particularly appreciated that an entity would sunset if no
action was taken on the recommendations for improvement. He
asked if a bill would need to be enacted into law in order
for the sunset provision to be triggered. He wondered what
would happen if the legislature passed a bill but it was
vetoed.
Representative Carpenter responded that the legislature
must act substantially on the proposed legislation. He
assumed that the definition of "substantial" could be left
open to a court challenge, but the language of the bill
stated that there needed to be substantial action taken.
Recommendations could be provided to the legislature and to
the executive branch; however, the recommendations were not
the criteria by which an entity would be sunsetted, but the
proposed legislation before the body would be the criteria.
If there was no proposed legislation, there would be no
threat of sunset for the particular entity.
Representative Stapp remarked that "public agency" needed
to be defined. He saw entities like the University of
Alaska (UA) and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
listed as examples in the bill, but many other state-owned
corporations were not listed. He was uncertain whether the
entities that were not listed were covered under existing
statute or whether the language of the bill only referred
to the listed entities.
Representative Carpenter responded that there was a reason
and his staff would provide the answer.
10:11:36 AM
DONNA ARDUIN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER, asked
for the question to be repeated.
Representative Stapp relayed that section 6, page 3 of the
bill defined public agency, and it specifically stated that
UA and ARRC were included. He asked if other state-owned
corporations were already defined in statute, or if the
corporations were simply not listed.
Ms. Arduin responded that section 6 said that a public
agency referred to a political subdivision, department,
institution, board, commission, division, authority, public
corporation, council, committee, or other instrumentality
of the state or municipality. A public agency included UA,
ARRC, and ASC. The section simply changed the definition of
public agency, which included corporations, to include the
ASC as a public entity.
10:13:19 AM
KELLY HOWELL, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR (via teleconference), reviewed the previously
published fiscal impact (FN1) from the Office of the
Governor with the control code rAWgv. The cost estimates
were associated with creating, supporting, and maintaining
the seven-member commission, and included the frequency and
location of commission meetings, the number and type of
professional staff and or consultants the commission deemed
necessary to perform its duties, the scope of work required
for each state entity review, and the number of reviews
conducted each year. Given the duties of the commission, it
was estimated that a professional staff of at least five
would be needed, including one administrative assistant,
one accountant, two auditors, and an attorney. The annual
personal services costs were estimated to be $790,000
annually, which included salary and benefits.
Ms. Howell continued that at least one commission meeting
per year would be face-to-face but other meetings could be
held virtually. An average travel cost of $1,000 per member
was estimated for the three non-state members to
participate in an in-person meeting and $20,000 was
estimated for commission staff to travel to conduct the
work required for the entity review, for an estimated
annual cost of $23,000. The contractual services costs
included meeting facilities, office space rental, state
enterprise productivity rates, equipment rental, and
recording services with an estimated annual cost of
$120,000, and also included on the contractual line was
$200,000 annually for consultant services. Commodities or
supplies costs included office and meeting supplies and
office equipment for the commission staff at $3,500 each
for a total first-year cost of $17,500 and total second and
subsequent year costs estimated at $7,500. The fiscal note
included a total unrestricted general fund (UGF) cost of
$1,150,500 for FY 25 and $1,140,500 for FY 26 and beyond.
10:16:26 AM
Representative Ortiz asked if the inefficiency could be due
to the legislature not having enough time to enact
significant reforms. He suggested that perhaps politics
becomes a barrier to reform, but he thought that barrier
was likely applicable to every legislature.
Representative Carpenter responded that he did not think
the two were mutually exclusive. He thought both time and
politics could be a barrier to significant reform. He
thought the question at hand was whether the legislature
was willing to prioritize process reform. The legislature
was not the only entity within state government that could
use process improvement. He thought the executive branch
could engage in process improvement as well and often
accomplished improvements. He had worked in bureaucratic
organizations and it took an extraordinary event or
direction to step back from the day-to-day duties and look
at the job from a holistic point of view. He thought it
took courage for leadership to state that it wanted to
prioritize employees' time and improve the efficiency of
daily tasks. He reiterated that the barriers included time,
money, and willingness to improve.
Representative Ortiz asked if it would be possible to have
consistent and objective non-partisan forums for evaluation
within a political institution. He noted that a process
might be considered efficient to one person but might feel
inefficient to someone else. He asked if there was evidence
that the commission would bring about substantive change.
10:21:01 AM
Representative Carpenter responded that he was fairly
certain that Texas has similar political conversations as
Alaska because it was also an oil state. He encouraged
Representative Ortiz to listen to the aforementioned
invited testimony [in House State Affairs]. He relayed that
Texas had a proven track record of successfully addressing
systemic process improvement related change within the
government. He understood that Texas had been able to save
almost $1 billion in revenue as a direct result of process
improvement efforts. There was initial uncertainty on where
to house ASC but after deliberation, he settled on housing
the commission under the lieutenant governor because
reviewing regulations was already a responsibility of the
lieutenant governor. He also aimed to ensure there was a
balance between the executive branch and legislative
branch, as well as a balance between the two legislative
bodies. The members of the commission would be appointed by
both the legislature and the executive branch to minimize
political interference while knowing that politics could
not be completely removed.
Representative Ortiz asked if an agency had been abolished
in other states due to the implementation of a sunset
commission.
Representative Carpenter responded that slide 9 showed that
52 entities and programs had been abolished, transferred,
or consolidated in Texas.
10:24:03 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee had time
constraints and would likely need to return to the topic in
the afternoon.
Representative Galvin was concerned about the cost detailed
in the fiscal note. She thought there needed to be more
trust in the government and she was hesitant because ASC
felt like another layer of government. She asked why there
needed to be a large commission and more staff when the
state already had excellent auditors.
Representative Carpenter responded that the state's auditor
conducted financial audits and not process improvement
audits. The commission would be looking at process
improvement.
Representative Galvin asked for more information on process
improvement. She saw on slide 9 that there had been much
consolidation and removal of programs in Texas. She hoped
that the programs were becoming more efficient based on the
commission.
Representative Carpenter responded that Representative
Galvin was correct. An audit might identify a particular
program that was statutorily required but underfunded, and
a recommendation to the legislature might be to properly
fund the program. Additionally, an entity could be
performing services that were not statutorily required and
the commission could start a conversation about whether the
entity should continue to receive funding. He noted that
"mission creep" was common in government and the commission
would illuminate the mission creep.
10:29:17 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed his intention to return to the
conversation if there was time later in the day.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for HB 190 for
Thursday, May 9 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 190 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[The meeting was recessed but never reconvened.]