Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/19/2022 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 | |
| HB251 | |
| HB271 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 271-AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES
3:36:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for
an effective date."
3:36:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 271, labeled 32-LS1364\I, Klein, 4/15/22,
as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
3:37:00 PM
XANNIE BORSETH, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS for HB 271 ("Version I"), which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Deletes Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.
Section 4 Page 2, line 10 adds "by publishing the
notice on the authority's Internet website" to AS
44.88.085(d) which requires public notice before
adoption, amendment, or repeal of an AIDEA proposed
action.
Sections renumbered accordingly
3:38:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether a two-minute minimum for
public testimony would be too prescriptive.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the two-minute
minimum was unchanged from the original version of the bill.
MS. BORSETH answered yes, noting that the language, "not less
than two minutes", was on page 2, line 19.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern that the chair would not
have discretion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised the committee to table this
discussion until final comment, as the provision in question was
not new to Version I.
3:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under the proposed
legislation, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) membership would be staggard five-year terms that, once
confirmed by the legislature, could not be removed by the
governor.
MS. BORSETH deferred to the bill sponsor.
3:41:40 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, confirmed that Representative Claman's
understanding was accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he liked the provision because the
AIDEA board members would serve independently from the executive
branch.
3:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated his previous concern about the
language on page 2, line 22, such that the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority ("the authority") may be
required to publish written responses to a large number of
public comments.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said she did not have a response to that concern
at this time.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that similar to Representative
Story's inquiry, the language in question was unchanged relative
to the original version of the bill.
3:43:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version I was adopted as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected her original line of questioning
regarding the two-minute minimum for public testimony.
3:45:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 271, opined that a minimum of two minutes for
public testimony was a vast improvement compared to current
practices.
3:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented on the history of abrupt time or
agenda changes in AIDEA's scheduled meetings. She asked whether
the current language adequately addressed the expectations of
transparency. She suggested adding language that prohibited
last minute meeting changes, which had shattered public trust in
the past.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the goal was not to
tie the board's hands completely. He indicated that it was a
policy call.
3:48:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited general comments from Mr. Weitzner
on Version I.
3:48:49 PM
ALAN WEITZNER, Executive Director, AIDEA, directed attention to
the meeting agendas, which were published on the authority's
website and available for public review. He contended that the
public was consistently allotted two minutes per person for one
hour, as defined on the agenda. He stated that AIDEA took
public comment extremely seriously, adding that the authority
would be receptive to suggestions for improvement. Regarding
Version I, he directed attention to Section 5, which repealed
AIDEA's confidentiality statutes, arguing that the language in
AS 44.88.215 was necessary for AIDEA's operation. He cautioned
the committee that repealing the confidentiality statutes would
publicize all the information submitted by parties with business
operations or loans with AIDEA, both current and historically.
He urged the committee to take a closer look at Section 5.
3:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Weitzner was suggesting
that Section 5 should be excluded.
MR. WEITZNER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to the language "shall
publish written responses to public comments" on page 2, lines
21-22 of Version I and asked how AIDEA would treat that
provision in practice. Specifically, he questioned whether
AIDEA would respond to similar comments with a general response,
as opposed to responding to each individual comment separately.
MR. WEITZNER explained that under current practice, AIDEA
provided a written response to written public comment. He
maintained that AIDEA had the capacity to meet the requirement
in question. He asked the committee how the provision would be
put into practice, questioning whether AIDEA would be required
to address each individual public comment before taking action.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked, "I understand the current
practice is that, internally, you have some memo that says,
'here's how we respond to these 100 comments,' but those
comments don't go anywhere other than internally?"
MR. WEITZNER responded that internal staff reviewed and
responded to the parties that send public comment.
3:57:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that last minute changes had been
made to the agenda of a specific AIDEA meeting regarding the
purchase of leases for drilling in the Arctic refuge, which
impacted people's ability to provide public testimony on the
issue. She asked Mr. Weitzner to comment on that circumstance.
MR. WEITZNER said the meeting in question was declared as a
"special meeting of the board." He explained that the meeting
was on short notice because of the need to make a decision in a
short period of time due to a limited opportunity to act on the
leases. He reiterated that under current practice, two minutes
of public testimony was allotted per person for one hour. He
shared his understanding that only the public testimony that
would have exceeded the one-hour time period was cut off.
3:59:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that prior actions had led the public
to call for a reform of the enabling statutes. She opined that
it would be in the public's best interest to extend the time for
public testimony past one hour, as cutting people off planted
the seeds of mistrust. She expressed her hope that absent the
passage of the proposed legislation, AIDEA would consider the
impact of its actions relative to the public's trust.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the existing statutory
language on public comment pertaining to AIDEA stated, "a total
period of at least on hour". He asked why public testimony had
been cut off after completing the bare minimum and who made that
decision.
MR. WEITZNER stated that it was common practice of the chair to
extend that time period. He emphasized that, ultimately, it was
the chair's decision. He shared his understanding that any
party who did not get a chance to testify was encouraged to
email their testimony to AIDEA.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected his question back to the
incident described by Representative Tarr. He asked why the
chair had decided to stop public testimony after one hour
despite there being additional members of the public in the que
to testify.
MR. WEITZNER said it was the chair's decision to stop the agenda
item.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the interest in efficiency;
however, he pointed out that a legislative committee would never
cut public testimony short if there were people in the queue.
4:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about special meetings of the board
and asked how the process for public notice differed from
regular meetings.
MR. WEITZNER reported that public testimony for the meeting in
question was noticed for 1.5 hours. He explained that AIDEA
followed the Open Meetings Act, per AS 44.62.310, which required
"reasonable public notice" for open meetings. In practice, he
stated that AIDEA made agendas available to the public one week
prior to the scheduled board meetings. For special meetings,
AIDEA was required to provide notice at least 48 hours in
advance. In regard to the specific meeting in question, he
recalled that the agenda was provided three days in advance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON addressed Mr. Weitzner's comments on
Section 5, indicating that his intent was for the effect to be
prospective, as opposed to retroactive.
4:08:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN associated himself with Representative
Tarr's comments regarding public testimony. He shared his
understanding that the intent of the proposed legislation was to
require AIDEA to listen to public testimony in its entirety.
4:10:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Mr. Weitzner to elaborate on his
concerns about Section 5.
MR. WEITZNER reiterated his belief that Section 5 would have the
broadest impact on ADIEA's operations. He maintained that the
existing language under AS 44.88.215 specifically limited the
amount of information that AIDEA was allowed to hold and define
as confidential. He pointed out that Section 5 would directly
impact AIDEA's loan programs and the way the authority engaged
with the financial service industry within Alaska. He argued
that eliminating the confidentiality statutes would
significantly impact AIDEA's capacity to continue with its
current operations and the issuance of dividends.
4:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew a comparison between limited public
testimony and campaign finance limits, arguing that it could
discourage people from participating in the public process.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked the bill sponsor to speak to the
intent of [Section 5].
4:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON conveyed that it was a "core principle
of AIDEA's critics." He explained that his intent was to herald
and champion the public's ability to meaningfully interact with
the board. He recalled that transparency was afforded to the
public for decades, as AIDEA was founded in 1967; however, now,
transparency appeared to be lacking. He indicated that enabling
more transparency was an important feature of Version I.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that a blanket confidentiality
proviso could be overkill; however, businesses may not want
their intimate details and financial information to be public
record. He expressed his interest in finding a middle ground.
4:16:20 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK said a more detailed legal analysis could be
obtained and distributed to the committee. Nonetheless, she
recalled that numerous federal laws protected the
confidentiality of sensitive financial records. She explained
that the bill sponsor's intent was for records to be subject to
the Alaska Public Records Act.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that a legal analysis would
provide him some comfort and better understanding. He suggested
looking at an analogue of how public records laws interacted
with the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development's (DCCED's) Division of Economic Development's
revolving loan fund programs, given that much of the financing
went through that entity.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 271 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 271 Work Draft for CS Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Explanation of Changes from Version B to Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Written Testimony - Margi Dashevsky 03.29.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Emails of Support to HSTA as of 04.18.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 66 Written Testimony - Secure Democracy 04.13.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - A Practical Guide to RLAs by Democracy Fund.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - Secure Democracy Fact Sheet v.O 4.19.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Documents NCSL LegisBrief re RLAs July 2019 04.18.2022.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |