Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/03/2022 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| HB309 | |
| HB227 | |
| SB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 227 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 309-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
8:04:15 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 309, "An Act exempting candidates for
municipal office and municipal office holders in municipalities
with a population of 15,000 or less from financial or business
interest reporting requirements; relating to campaign finance
reporting by certain groups; and providing for an effective
date."
8:05:24 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 309, Version 32-LS0540\G, Bullard,
2/24/22, as a working document. There being no objection,
Version G was before the committee.
8:05:50 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:05 a.m. to 8:06 a.m.
8:06:50 AM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 309 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. She paraphrased
the sponsor statement [hard copy included in the committee
file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 309 seeks to remedy two issues that will make the
Alaska Public Offices Commission more effective.
HB 309 provides a campaign disclosure reporting
exemption for smaller groups who don't intend to raise
or spend more than $2,500 in a calendar year ($5,000
during an 18 month election cycle). The bill also
exempts these groups from the electronic filing
requirement for these reports. This is beneficial as
smaller groups generally require much more APOC staff
time and interaction because they are usually novices
who are only interested in a single topic on a ballot,
unlike ongoing groups that participate every year. A
similar exemption already exists for judicial
retention candidates and municipal candidates.
HB 309 would also exempt smaller communities
(population of 15,000 or less), from Public Official
Financial Disclosure (POFD) reporting requirements.
There is already a minimum population exemption for
campaign disclosures, but none for a POFD filing. Many
of the smaller communities who struggle with clerk
turnover, connectivity, and regular mail service often
find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to
timely notifications and filing. This results in
disproportionate civil penalties for these rural areas
where most, if not all, of their municipal officers
are serving in a volunteer capacity.
MS. GROSS pointed to conforming language in the bill and the
effective date of January 1, 2023.
8:09:44 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN noted the following individuals were available
for questions: Heather Hebdon, Executive Director, Alaska
Public Offices Commission; and Alpheus Bullard, the bill drafter
from Legislative Legal Services.
8:10:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how many municipalities in Anchorage
have populations under 15,000.
8:10:32 AM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), answered that although she did not have the
exact figure available at that moment, her estimate would be 25
communities. In response to a follow-up question regarding the
need for HB 309, she explained that the smaller communities that
struggle with "clerk turnover, connectivity issues, and mail
service" are at a distinct disadvantage compared to those in
urban issues that do not struggle with those issues. In these
smaller communities, the vast majority are submitting forms
manually and are serving in a volunteer capacity, and APOC finds
it is continually penalizing them "for many things that are
beyond their control."
8:12:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how the bill sponsor determined
the number should be 15,000, and she named some [municipalities]
that would qualify but would not be considered small or "without
robust Internet."
MS. GROSS answered that the number was derived as a result of
talks with Ms. Hebdon, to whom she deferred.
8:14:01 AM
MS. HEBDON proffered that the minimum threshold that exists
under campaign disclosure currently is [municipalities] of 1,000
or more. She said the 15,000 captures [municipalities] that
APOC was not necessarily concerned about, but it exists in
statute in terms of [municipalities of 15,000 and up] that are
required to file electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND told Co-Chair Hannan that she would like
a list of [municipalities] with populations of 15,000 or less.
8:15:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY questioned what "community" could
encompass.
MS. GROSS noted that she may have used the term "community" but
what is being discussed are municipalities, which are defined
under statute.
8:17:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE observed he saw only five municipalities
listed that are greater than 15,000, and he said he, too, would
like a list.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN clarified that the committee needs more
information on who is impacted and what the bill is trying to
fix, because there is concern by members not to make the bill
too broad. She then point out that one of the exemptions
created under HB 309 states that the municipalities under 15,000
in population would still be allowed to file electronically;
they would not be required to do so.
8:19:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Alaska Municipal League
has a directory of all the municipalities in Alaska, which
includes population. She then asked if the provisions under the
bill would apply to first-class cities or only to
municipalities.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN asked whether the legislation addressed regional
educational attendance area (REAA) elections.
8:20:33 AM
MS. HEBDON answered that the REAA elections are not regulated by
APOC. She noted that currently municipalities are able to
exempt themselves from POFD, and a vast majority have done so
going back to approximately 1975. She offered her understanding
that currently there are 30 municipalities and boroughs that
fall under POFD regulations. Of those, 5 are over 15,000, so HB
309 would impact approximately 25 municipalities.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN suggested Ms. Hebdon could provide how many of
those municipalities that are "covered by it" and which ones
"already exempted themselves from the disclosure law."
MS. HEBDON said she would be happy to do that.
8:22:09 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE asked about the motivation for the $2,500 cap.
He asked if there are a lot of groups that raise less than that
amount involved in elections.
MS. HEBDON answered that the $2,500 was identified through
currently existing statute related to municipal and judicial
candidates that agree to raise less than $5,000 during a
campaign cycle of 18 months or two years. She said, "So, this
was an effort to try to make ... it equal for these smaller
groups." She said APOC finds there are smaller groups that are
interested in one election, one candidate or issue, and do not
have major expenditures, and APOC spends considerable time
assisting those groups because they are novices requiring a lot
of attention.
8:23:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK commented that his district, the North
Slope Borough, has a population under 15,000, and he filed a
POFD when he ran for assembly and had no issue doing so. He
said the borough does not experience turnover of clerks. He
asked where the language was in HB 309 which allows the option
of continuing to file POFDs. He then pointed to the sponsor
statement and noted that there is already "a minimum population
exemption for campaign disclosures." He asked, "Are we
mirroring that number with that 15,000 mark or is that a
different number?"
MS. GROSS deferred to Ms. Hebdon.
8:25:15 AM
MS. HEBDON asked Representative Patkotak to confirm his first
question as being whether municipalities exempted out of POFD
under APOC could elect to "manage it themselves" and "require
that their officials file POFDs or something similar."
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK responded yes.
MS. HEBDON confirmed that is correct. She said she knew a few
municipalities already doing so. Regarding Representative
Patkotak's second question, she said the campaign disclosure
threshold is a population of less than 1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK, regarding the idea of municipal office
holders following POFD filing, asked whether, under HB 309, and
considering the responsibility of APOC, that would "still be
able to be something that could be accomplished on line." He
added that he wanted to know whether that is something "that
still can be accomplished with the way the bill is written, as
far as online filing, if we do self-elect, and we do fall under
that population threshold."
MS. HEBDON said she does not know the answer and would have to
think about the question further.
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK emphasized the importance of proper
disclosure.
8:29:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 309 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 227 MOA CPACE Presentation 1.20.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HENE 1/20/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Version I.PDF |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HENE 1/20/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Sponsor Statement 1.20.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HENE 1/20/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 DCCED CRA Fiscal Note.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HENE 1/20/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 CPACE Sectional 1.20.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HENE 1/20/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 DCCED CRA Fiscal Note 1.27.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Letters of Support 2.24.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 227 Sponsor Statement 1.27.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 227 |
| HB 309 CS version G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 Sectional Analysis ver G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 Sponsor Statement ver G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| SB 143 Fiscal Note 0 - Various Depts.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Letter of Support - Matthew Widmer.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Sectional Analysis version I.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Support Document 1 - Sarah Badten.PDF |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Support Document 2 - Pre-1986 Home-Condominium Owners Associations.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Support Document 3 - Post-1986 Home-Condominium Owners Associations.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Bill Version I.PDF |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Fiscal Note 2.5.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 143 |
| HB 243 – Letter of opposition_Redacted 3.1.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 243 |
| HB 227 Amendments (1-6) 3.2.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 227 |