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 316-STANDARDIZED IMPROVEMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
4:58:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act providing for a
standardized improvement tracking system for state agencies."
4:58:17 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:58:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, prime sponsor, introduced HB 316. He
indicated that the bill would create an action tracker within
the executive branch that would track critical items in a
methodical way to allow for better organization.
5:00:14 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime
sponsor of HB 316, summarized the sponsor statement [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows:
HB 316 addresses the need for a standardized
improvement tracking system throughout the executive
branch. Audit findings and internal issues have been
growing in quantity, age, and magnitude across
Alaska's State Government meaning that something must
be done to improve outcomes.
Organizations seeking to refine and optimize their
operations to improve outcomes do so using a variety
of methods, but action trackers are one of the most
important tools in the continuous improvement toolkit.
Having a formal tracking system in place enables
organizations to identify opportunities for
improvement and track them to completion. Each
improvement opportunity has merit and should be
reviewed, but not all can be worked to completion. A
select few improvement opportunities will be deemed
priorities based on impacts to operations, a rough
cost/benefit analysis, age of issue, and resources
available.
These high-priority improvement opportunities will
then be treated like a project with one or multiple
actions and a scheduled completion date. This tracking
system will make next steps and progress visible which
will lead to realized benefits across state
government.
Reports will also include success stories of
opportunities and actions that have been completed.
These successes should be celebrated, and the
executive branch could likely find creative ways to
incentivize the closure of these items.
Action items registered in such a system are often
referred to as corrective and preventative actions,
sometimes using the acronym CA/PA, with corrective
action referring to actions taken to remedy what has
already occurred, while preventative actions are taken
to prevent a future occurrence.
The benefits of a standardized system will be
dependent upon the extent to which the organization
uses the system, but there is a possibility to
increase transparency and accountability across
agencies and programs while improving the function of
the organization and delivery of value to customers of
various services.
MR. HARVEY directed attention to the PowerPoint presentation on
HB 316 [hard copy included in the committee packet], beginning
on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
OVERVIEW
Problem Statement: Audit Findings and internal issues
grow in quantity and in magnitude when there is not a
standardized system in place to facilitate planning
and progression of actions.
Improvement Tracking System purpose
Improvement Tracking System core attributes
Government Examples
Committee Substitute in-progress
5:01:20 PM
MR. HARVEY continued to slide 3, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
PURPOSE
A standardized improvement tracking system for each
state agency
Must enable tracking of status, progress, and closure
of actions
Actions may arise from
• Audit findings
• Internal Corrective and preventive action
requests
• Improvement opportunities identified by agency
employees
• Opportunities by other internal or external
auditors
• Opportunities identified by customers
• Opportunities identified by customers
5:02:17 PM
MR. HARVEY turned to slide 4, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
IMPROVEMENT TRACKINGSYSTEM MUST:
Include the ability to uniquely track each improvement
opportunity for each state agency
Validate each opportunity to check whether it is
unique or exists in the system in some form
Identify various elements which are important when
pursuing prioritization and closure of opportunities
Provide mechanism for state agencies to
• Perform a Root Cause Analysis, determine
corrective actions, develop an implementation
schedule, and evaluate implementation
Ensure evaluation of effectiveness of plans and assess
improvements
Provide for status reports to relevant stakeholders
5:03:20 PM
MR. HARVEY advanced to slide 5, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
STATUS REPORTING
Quarterly status reports to heads of agencies
Annual status reports from the Governor to the
legislature
Reports must include:
• Quantity of open and closed items
• Aging of items approaching or beyond scheduled
completion date
• Cost or benefit of items closed during the
reporting period and fiscal year to date
• Details of higher criticality items closed within
reporting period
• Details of higher criticality items extended or
expected to extend beyond original due date
• Action plans for higher criticality items beyond
their scheduled closure date
5:04:13 PM
MR. HARVEY proceeded to slide 6, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
GAO EXAMPLE
Priority Recommendations
• As GAO issues reports/testimonies, included
recommendations are tracked in this database
• Certain recommendations are deemed priority
recommendations
Action Tracker
• These priority recommendations are assigned
actions, which are tracked and progressed in the
action tracker
Month-In-Review
• A summary of audits, reports, progress, and more
5:05:24 PM
MR. HARVEY continued to slide 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
GAO EXAMPLE
Priority Recommendations
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-
testimonies/recommendations-database
Action Tracker
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-testimonies/action-
tracker
Month-In-Review
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-testimonies/month-in-
review
5:05:31 PM
MR. HARVEY concluded on slide 8, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE IN PROGRESS
Requested Changes to reduce the administrative burden
and increase effectiveness of the system
Prioritize opportunities and only progress high-
priority, actionable opportunities that can be
completed with available resources
Refine the list in the newly created AS 44.66.100
(c)(3)
• Reducing this list to critical components and
adding an open-ended component which would allow
the system administrator to add information as
deemed necessary
Add a requirement to publicize high-priority
opportunities/actions and quarterly reports on a
single website
5:06:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the CS was being
drafted.
MR. HARVEY answered yes.
5:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the reporting requirements would
be made available on a website and whether that would be
clarified in the CS.
MR. HARVEY said the forthcoming CS would clarify that the status
reports would be made available on a website.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the website already existed
or whether it needed to be created.
MR. HARVEY said that had not been decided upon, adding that the
Office of Management & Budget's (OMB's) website was being
considered, as well as other ideas.
5:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked which state agencies had looked over
this plan and whether they had indicated that the administrative
burden was too high, thus necessitating the forthcoming CS.
MR. HARVEY said the bill had been socialized with OMB and a
legislative auditor. He explained that the bill in its current
form suggested that the goal was to track everything, which was
not the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested to hear from state agencies at a
future bill hearing about how the proposed legislation would
impact them.
5:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there was a fiscal note.
MR. HARVEY said it was forthcoming.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether a fiscal note would be
submitted from every state department.
MR. HARVEY did not know which departments would be submitting a
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN believed that there was merit to the
notion of improving the system; however, he pointed out that
when corporations implemented this type of system, it required a
significant outlay of time and money. He opined that in
reality, implementing such a system would be difficult.
5:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether conversations were had with
the administration or the Department of Administration (DOA)
regarding the directive to streamline state agencies, which
seemed like a similar ask.
MR. HARVEY responded that certain departments had implemented
the departmental improvement directive more than others, which
was why a standardized system would help, he opined. He noted
that the bill proposed a middle ground between departments that
had implemented the directive in a large-scale way and those
that had done little to streamline.
5:12:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 316 was held over.