Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/15/2022 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 | |
| HB396 | |
| HB291 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB309 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 309-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
5:13:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 309(CRA).]
5:13:41 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:14:15 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor, presented the sponsor statement for CSHB
309(CRA), 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.
5:16:22 PM
MS. GROSS noted that the bill was 10 sections long; however,
only three - Section 1, Section 2, and Section 5 - were
substantive. She directed attention to the PowerPoint
presentation on HB 309 [hard copy included in the committee
packet], beginning on slide 1, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
HB 309
There already exists an exemption from POFD filing
requirements for candidatesrunning for municipal
office in municipalities with populations of 1000 or
less.
There is NOT currently any population threshold
exemption for POFD filing requirements for elected or
appointed municipal officers.
This is the change we are making in Section 5 of HB
309 by adding a POFD reporting threshold for
candidates and elected/appointed municipal officers in
municipalities with populations of 15,000 or less.
5:18:38 PM
MS. GROSS provided a comparative analysis of current law and HB
309 on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 309 BEFORE AND AFTER
Current Law
• All municipal candidates in municipalities with
populations of 1,000 and above subject to POFD filing
requirements.
• All municipal officials in communities of any size,
who have not opted out, are subject to POFD filing
requirements (currently 30 municipalities).
Under HB 309
• All candidates and municipal officials I
municipalities with populations of 15,000 or less are
EXEMPT from POFD filing requirements.
• 25 municipalities formerly subject to POFD filing
requirements, now exempt.
• 5 municipalities still subject to POFD filing
requirements for both municipal candidates and
officials:
• Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Fairbanks
North Star Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and
Juneau City and Borough still
5:20:04 PM
MS. GROSS turned to slide 3, which provided a list of
municipalities that had opted out of the public official
financial disclosure (POFD) filing requirements for municipal
candidates and officers (136 total). She concluded on slide 4,
which listed the municipalities currently subject to POFD filing
requirements (30 total). The 25 municipalities (shown in red)
would be exempt from POFD filing requirements for candidates and
elected officials if HB 309 were to pass. It would leave 5
municipalities (shown in black) still subject to POFD filing
requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed questions from committee members.
5:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, referring to slide 4, asked whether the
25 municipalities weren't allowed to opt out or whether they
chose not to opt out.
MS. GROSS shared her understanding that they chose not to opt
out.
5:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if the 25 municipalities
decided to file the opt-out provisions, the 5 larger
municipalities could choose not to opt out without passing the
legislation.
MS. GROSS confirmed, adding that theoretically, all 30
communities on slide 4 could choose to file the opt-out
provisions.
5:22:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Fairbanks was excluded from
the list because the city had chosen to opt out.
MS. GROSS confirmed that Fairbanks had already opted out of the
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the 25 municipalities could
opt back in if the bill were to pass.
MS. GROSS believe that the answer was yes. She deferred to Ms.
Hebdon for further explanation.
5:23:19 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said there was nothing in statute that would
preclude the 25 communities, which were exempted under HB 309
from the POFD filing requirements, from self-directing their own
financial disclosure reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether they could opt in using the
state's website.
MS. HEBDON said in theory, yes.
5:25:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was confused. She asked why the
legislature would take action on this if the communities could
already choose to opt out.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that question was a good segway into
invited testimony. He welcomed Clay Walker, the mayor of the
Denali Borough.
5:26:00 PM
CLAY WALKER, Mayor, Denali Borough, argued that transparency was
important to ensure public trust; further that policy should
encourage public service. He explained that the current
financial disclosure process was onerous and invasive for small
municipalities. He recalled that many communities, including
the Denali Borough, opted out when the state changed its
financial disclosure laws making them more burdensome. He
reported that the Denali Borough created its own financial
disclosure form, which was based on the state's prior financial
disclosure form from 1999. He explained that the form included
associations and sources of revenue but excluded details such as
loan amounts and children's revenue. He recommended exempting
municipalities, thus allowing them the ability to self-govern.
5:29:57 PM
JOHN HANDELAND, Mayor, Nome, expressed his support for HB 309
and urged its passage from committee. Additionally, he aligned
his comments with Mayor Walker's testimony, noting that Nome was
one of few communities that chose not to opt out because the
municipality didn't realize it was an option. He opined that
the reporting requirements had an adverse effect on people's
involvement in government service. He believed that Alaskan's
value their right to privacy. He anecdotally reported that only
one or two citizens had ever requested a physical copy of the
disclosure report in Nome, surmising that people make their
decisions based on other factors. He suggested amending the
effective date to July 1, 2022.
5:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Nome would choose to opt out
since realizing it was an option, as permitted under current
statute.
MAYOR HANDELAND said it would be something to consider.
5:35:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she tended to favor transparency and
believed that citizens had the right to know who their public
officials were and what their financial interest were. She
asked how the process could be fixed to better accommodate
individuals seeking public office.
MAYOR HANDELAND recommended setting up a local process for
financial disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether part of the issue was that the
reports were public and questioned whether keeping them private
would be a solution.
MAYOR HANDELAND agreed that keeping the financial disclosures
private would help. Further, he argued that some of the
categories on the form weren't necessary, pointing out that in
congress, income was reported by range.
5:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the City of Nome practiced
recusal from votes if there was a conflict of interest.
MAYOR HANDELAND answered yes, members must declare a conflict of
interest.
5:48:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the civil penalties for a
late filer.
MS. HEBDON answered that the maximum civil penalty daily rate
was $10 for a public official's financial disclosure.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many civil penalties had been
assessed for municipal filers in years passed.
MS. HEBDON was unsure. She offered to follow up with the
requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how the POFD process differed for
municipal candidates versus elected officials.
MS. HEBDON stated that APOC published a POFD for the following
people on its website: the governor, lieutenant governor, state
legislators, and candidates for state municipal offices. She
noted that for anyone excluded from those categories, the POFD
would not be published on APOC's website; however, it was a
public document and could be obtained upon request.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the commission's rational for
excluding certain people's POFD from the website
MS. HEBDON said the rationale was the potential for a chilling
effect on volunteer boards and commissions; difficulty in
recruiting appointed members of the executive branch; and
matters of security for judicial officers.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many annual public requests were
received for the POFDs not published on the website.
MS. HEBDON answered less than 10, noting that the majority of
public POFD requests were for executive and judicial branch
officials.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was a single instance
of a municipal POFD request in Ms. Hebdon's tenure at APOC.
MS. HEBDON answered no, she could not recall any requests for
municipal POFDs.
5:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why CSHB 309(CRA) would exempt groups
that raised or expended no more than $2,500 in a calendar year.
5:54:07 PM
MS. GROSS deferred to Ms. Hebdon.
MS. HEBDON shared her understanding that the purpose was to
exempt and unburden smaller groups that formed around a local
grassroots ballot proposition, which didn't typically continue
after one specified election but required a significant amount
of staff time and intricate reporting. She said it was similar
to an existing exemption for local candidates who didn't intend
on having a lot of financial activity.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether $2,500 was sufficient for
these types of groups.
MS. HEBDON said $2,500 was reached based on the current
exemption that existed for candidates, as previously mentioned.
5:56:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented on small grassroots groups and
expressed his support for excluding them so as to avoid
burdening them with financial disclosure requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote on his
experience participating in small group efforts in Sitka, noting
that the APOC requirements were a significant dissuasion.
5:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled that the Denali Borough had
created its own financial disclosure form. She asked whether
other municipalities had done the same.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that the North Slope Borough had
determined that they wanted POFD disclosure requirements. He
offered to follow up with more information.
MAYOR WALKER did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested a copy of the form used by the
Denali Borough.
6:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that the Homer City Council
required a more thorough financial disclosure than the state.
She argued that local municipalities would be fully capable of
self-governance on this issue if the state were to remove its
requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said it was clear that current POFD
requirements were not working, as more than 80 communities had
opted out. He questioned the purpose of a POFD that sits unused
in a city office building. He pointed out that if the
legislature decided to make them publicly available, so that the
goal of transparency was fulfilled, there would also have to be
an awareness that a chilling effect may follow.
6:05:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 309(CRA) was held over.