Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/22/2022 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 | |
| HB401 | |
| HB396 | |
| SB95 | |
| HB309 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 401 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 309-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
4:19:07 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).]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0540\W.2, Bullard, 3/19/22], which read:
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "January 1, 2023"
Insert "July 1, 2022"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:20:26 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tompkins,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 would
change the effective date from January 1, 2023, to July 1, 2022.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why this change was needed.
MS. GROSS said after speaking with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), moving the effective date to July 1 would
alleviate unnecessary candidate POFD statements for the 2022
October elections for the 25 municipalities below 25,000.
4:21:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked APOC to comment on the effective date
change.
4:21:49 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, APOC, shared her
understanding that Amendment 1 would still allow sufficient time
for APOC to coordinate with the clerks in the 25 municipalities
that would be impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:22:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0540\W.3, Bullard, 3/21/22], which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "groups;":
Insert "relating to the filing of public official
financial disclosure reports by municipalities;"
Page 6, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 39.50.145 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding an exemption elected under
(a) of this section, a municipality may file with the
commission public official financial disclosure
reports for its municipal officers and candidates for
elective municipal office. The commission shall
maintain a report filed under this subsection as a
public record while kept on file, but a person for
whom a report is filed under this subsection is not
subject to the requirements of AS 39.50.060,
39.50.070, or 39.50.135. In this subsection,
"municipal officer" includes a borough or city mayor,
borough assemblyman, city councilman, school board
member, elected utility board member, city or borough
manager, or member of a city or borough planning or
zoning commission within a home rule or general law
city or borough or a unified municipality."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:22:39 PM
MS. GROSS said Amendment 2 would provide an affirmative
statement that nothing would stop the municipalities from using
APOC's existing system for filing disclosures.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the language
pertained to a municipality filing a disclosure on behalf of an
individual, as opposed to an individual filing his/her own
disclosure.
MS. GROSS clarified that the intent was for the language to
pertain to candidates and public officials from municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the language be amended
for clarity.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked to hear from Mr. Bullard first. He
asked how the language "a municipality" on lines 8-9 of
Amendment 2 related to individual candidates filing a POFD with
APOC.
4:24:49 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, clarified that Amendment 2 did not
pertain to individual candidates and municipal officials.
Instead, he said, the proposed amendment was addressed to
municipalities. He was unsure whether individual candidates or
municipal officials could submit a POFD under this provision, as
it was directed at municipalities.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed a conceptual amendment from
Representative Eastman.
4:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, such that "a municipality" on line 9 was deleted
and replaced with "an individual".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for Ms. Hebdon to comment on
Conceptual Amendment 1.
4:25:59 PM
MS. HEBDON opined that the intent would be clearer if "a
municipality" was replaced with "a municipal officer" or "a
municipal candidate".
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify whether the sponsor's
intent was for the amendment to allow municipalities "to make
that judgment to require candidates and officers to file with
the commission" versus giving direction to an individual. She
sought to confirm that the amendment would effectively allow
municipalities to continue to participate in the existing APOC
requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes and withdrew Amendment 2. He
moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled [32-LS0540\W.5, Bullard,
3/21/22], which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "groups;":
Insert "requiring online disclosure of public
officials' financial and business interest reports;"
Page 6, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 39.50.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) The commission shall post each record filed
under this chapter so that the record may be viewed on
the commission's Internet website for as long as the
commission keeps the record on file."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:27:28 PM
MS. GROSS explained that Amendment 5 would require all submitted
POFDs to be viewable online.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed with that sentiment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned the purpose of POFDs and
wondered whether their statutory intent was fulfilled if POFDs
were being dutifully submitted and never accessed thereafter.
He opined that Amendment 3 encapsulated the intent of POFDs,
characterizing its potential impact as "more of a splash of cold
water to a lot of people who currently file POFDs every year."
4:28:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his concern that the language
"on file" on line 10 of Amendment 3 was ambiguous. He suggested
deleting that verbiage to add clarity. Additionally, he
expressed concern about the impact of the provision should it be
retroactive and suggested that old POFD filers be allowed to opt
out for a period of time if they so choose.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that his intent was not for the
amendment to have a retroactive effect.
4:30:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how the amendment would change
things moving forward.
MS. HEBDON conveyed that typically, statements published through
APOC's website were not purged at any time. She noted that the
commission was statutorily required to maintain [the records]
for at least six years. She explained that part of the tension
revolved around the municipal clerks being the official record
holders for municipal filing.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked where the six-year requirement
originated.
MS. HEBDON cited AS 39.50.050(b).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that APOC was required to
keep these records on file for at least six years; however, the
current practice was to keep POFDs published on APOCs website
forever.
MS. HEBDON answered yes.
4:33:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR attempted to clarify which category of POFDs
were not available online and whether Amendment 3 would change
that. Additionally, she questioned whether there should be a
timeframe for removing POFDs from APOC's website.
MS. HEBDON reported that the only POFDs published on APOC's
website were candidates for state and municipal offices; the
governor and lieutenant governor; and legislative financial
statements for seated and past legislators. She reiterated that
the remainder of POFDs were available to the public but not
published on APOC's website.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS listed municipal elected officials; heads
of departments and their deputies; division heads; deputy
directors of divisions; special assistants to the heads of state
agencies; judicial officers; and members of boards and
commissions as the remaining individuals who submit the POFDs
that were not published on APOC's website.
MS. HEBDON clarified that the POFDs submitted by the individuals
in that list were not necessarily paper files. She explained
that many were required to file their POFDs electronically,
which allowed APOC to file them in its system without publishing
them on the website. She indicated that only municipal officers
and candidates in communities of 15,000 or less were filing
paper statements.
4:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked for the bill sponsor's thoughts on
Amendment 1, which accelerated the effective date, given the
magnitude of Amendment 3.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he felt good about it in consultation
with APOC. Nonetheless, he suggested that POFDs should
potentially expire from public view after a certain amount of
time. He pointed out that if Amendment 3 were to pass, every
person who filed a POFD electronically would have their
mortgage, stocks, and income viewable online. He urged the
committee to consider that factor.
4:38:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that posting POFDs
online was excessive. He suggested limiting the viewership to
IP addresses from Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said Representative Eastman had highlighted
the tension between public disclosure and reasonable privacy.
He added that he was sensitive to that tension and reiterated
his interest in being intentional about the scope of the POFD
requirement. He opined that the idea involving Alaskan IP
addresses was compelling and asked Ms. Hebdon to comment.
MS. HEBDN declined to comment on the logistics of accomplishing
that proposal.
4:41:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that access could be limited to
anyone with a myAlaska account and asked whether that kind of
restriction was possible.
MS. HEBDON was unsure of the answer. She said it was not
something that APOC had considered.
4:42:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN remarked:
If the intent is to show that there might be a
conflict of interest with holdings in the POFD
reports, what is the benefit of reporting that if the
holding is a very small percentage.
MS. HEBDON said the legislature had decided that a holding of
$1,000 or more might pose a significant conflict of interest.
She reiterated that the threshold was a legislative directive
and therefore a policy call.
4:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the requirement to disclose
customers was a repeated concern raised by [constituents]. He
shared several personal anecdotes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, regarding Amendment 3, said she liked the
idea of transparency; however, she questioned whether there were
any legal concerns about the constitutional right to privacy,
adding that she wouldn't want a disclosure requirement to
discourage volunteers.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS speculated that any legal concerns would
have been raised when the POFD statutes were initially passed.
He believed that Representative Vance's question was more to who
should be filing POFDs.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked who aside from the public would
utilize this information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the POFD process only
occurred once an individual was selected to a board or
commission. He opined that it wouldn't make sense for all the
members of boards and commissions in Alaska to file POFDs if
they were to be published online; alternatively, he argued that
the legislature should save them the hassle of filing if their
POFDs were to remain offline tucked away in an electric file.
He opined that the POFD filer requirements should be scaled back
pending further conversations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed.
4:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded to the suggestion to limit
online POFD access to those with an Alaska IP address or
myAlaska account. He opined that unintentionally excluding
members of the press could be a dangerous implication.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Hebdon had any concern
about the words "on file" on line 10 of Amendment 3.
MS. HEBDON said if the amendment were to pass, APOC would have
to take a more detailed look at how files were maintained.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opined that the expiration of viewability
was an important question for the committee to address. He
withdrew Amendment 3, noting that the idea could be better
incorporated in a potential forthcoming committee substitute
(CS).
4:51:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her desire to prioritize public
disclosure for elected officials specifically.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
4:52:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32-
LS0540\W.7, Bullard, 3/21/22], which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "certain":
Insert "candidates and"
Page 2, line 11, following "year":
Insert ";
(3) candidate or group, if the candidate or
group
(A) indicates, on a form prescribed by the
commission, an intent not to raise and not to expend
more than $3,000 in a calendar year in a municipal
election in a municipality with a population of 15,000
or less;
(B) accepts contributions totaling not more
than $3,000 in a calendar year for the purposes of
influencing the outcome of a municipal election in a
municipality with a population of 15,000 or less; and
(C) makes expenditures totaling not more
than $3,000 in a calendar year for the purposes of
influencing the outcome of a municipal election in a
municipality with a population of 15,000 or less"
Page 2, line 30, following "(C)":
Insert "is"
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "(g)(2)"
Insert "(g)(2) or (3)"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 4 would exempt
groups that expended under $3,000 annually from filing with the
commission.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested making it a unanimous $5,000
for candidates and groups alike.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that her intent was to make
candidates and groups accountable to the same amount; however,
she believed that $3,000 fair, as it was a compromise between
the $2,500 reporting requirement for individuals and the $5,000
reporting requirement for groups.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested incorporating the idea into a CS.
He asked if that would be amenable.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed.
4:58:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Amendment 4.
5:01:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 309(CRA) was held over.