Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/2021 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB15 | |
| SB17 | |
| SB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 15-OPEN MEETINGS ACT; PENALTY
3:31:54 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to the Open Meetings Act; and establishing a
civil penalty for violations of the open meeting requirements by
members of governmental bodies."
She asked Melodie Wilterdink to introduce the bill.
3:33:31 PM
MELODIE WILTERDINK, Staff, Senator Mia Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 15 on behalf of the
sponsor, with a PowerPoint that is embodied in the sponsor
statement:
The Open Meetings Act requires that all meetings of an
Alaska governmental body of a public entity be open to
the public, unless exempt by statute (the Legislature
and Judiciary are exempt). Despite the challenges of
public gathering brought on by COVID-19, it is
essential that elected officials continue to abide by
the Open Meetings Act and hold meetings that are
available to the public. During the summer of 2020,
residents of Anchorage tried repeatedly to attend and
testify at assembly meetings in person, but to no
avail. The Assembly capped attendance at 15 people,
preventing anyone but members, staff, and the press
from attending.
Senate Bill 15 would establish a civil penalty of up
to $1,000 for elected or appointed members of
governmental bodies who violate the Open Meetings Act.
The purpose of Senate Bill 15 is to encourage the
continuation of open public meetings, despite current
and future challenges.
In 1965, the late Senator Ted Stevens then
Representative Stevens introduced House Bill 170,
"An Act requiring that the meetings of agencies of the
state and its subdivisions be open to the public with
certain exceptions," which we now know as the Open
Meetings Act. His original bill included a fine of up
to $1,000 for elected officials who violated the Act.
She noted that many other states attach various penalties to
violations of the Open Meetings Act. She directed attention to
the comments on slide 4 from Anchorage residents when they felt
the Anchorage Assembly was quelling their opportunity to speak.
The slide read as follow:
The Assembly used COVID as their excuse to bar the
public from the meeting. In my opinion, a fine might
discourage them from a repeat. - Mary Barr, resident
of District K
I personally don't understand how the Anchorage
Assembly can unilaterally decide how the money is
spent without the input from the people that they are
appointed to represent. Rose Hubbard, resident of
District H
It was extremely frustrating that we were not allowed
to go in ? It was a quick and easy way of shutting us
out, not having to listen to us. Christine Hill,
resident of District L
3:35:47 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if the bill changes the Open Meetings Act
to apply to legislators.
MS. WILTERDINK answered no; the legislature is held to the
Uniform Rules. To change whether legislators receive fines for
violating similar rules in the Uniform Rules would require a
separate piece of legislation or a resolution.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON referenced the first quote and said she
knows most of the assembly members and does not believe they
used COVID-19 as an excuse.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Wilterdink if she looked back at any of
the conversations when Representative Stevens had the Open
Meetings Act before the legislature and why he removed the
penalty from the initial bill.
MS. WILTERDINK answered she was not sure because not all the
committee meeting notes were unavailable.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her if she had data from other states on the
number of Open Meetings Act violations and correlating penalties
from mild to severe.
MS. WILTERDINK answered no, but she would follow up with the
information.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her if there was a mechanism to collect the
penalties indicated in the legislation.
MS. WILTERDINK answered yes. She explained the plan is to have
the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) collect the
penalties.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Heather Hebdon with APOC what it would entail
for APOC to collect the penalties.
3:38:59 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated as far as collecting the penalty, the legislation is not
clear how APOC would determine a violation occurred. They do not
have a mechanism to identify a violation or to determine how a
violation would be presented to APOC. APOC not only does not
regulate the Open Meetings Act, but it is subject to the Open
Meetings Act so the legislation presents a question of whether
there would be a conflict of interest in regulating the law.
CHAIR HUGHES stated the committee might have some things to work
through, but APOC first needs a mechanism. Secondly, the
legislature would have to give APOC the authority to deal with
the Open Meetings Act since the commission does not have the
prescribed duties at this point. She asked if those were the two
items she identified.
3:40:42 PM
MS. HEBDON answered yes.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Wilterdink if she and the sponsor had
considered an amendment or committee substitute to address those
points.
MS. WILTERDINK answered yes; the sponsor has an amendment that
would designate APOC for fine collections. She said her
understanding is APOC would follow a similar process to the
public complaint process where somebody brings a complaint about
an elected official and then it goes through the APOC process
where the commission does an investigation on both sides
followed by a recommendation and then a hearing.
SENATOR WILSON asked if APOC would work out the regulatory
language and process for fee collection should SB 15 pass.
3:42:02 PM
MS. HEBDON answered APOC currently does not have the statutory
authority to determine a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
Without statutory authority, she did not know if the regulatory
process would be sufficient.
SENATOR WILSON asked if the commission would go through the
regulatory process to collect fines if the committee were to
amend the bill to give APOC the statutory authority.
MS. HEBDON replied she could not speak to an amendment she had
not seen, but if APOC had the statutory authority it would make
sense to then go through the regulatory process to iron out
details. She added APOC expects this would have a significant
fiscal impact on the commission.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if that was due to a tremendous number of
violations. She said she thinks people would be on their toes
and violations would not be very frequent if SB 15 passed.
She asked her if SB 15 would be a lot of work for APOC, not just
the development of the regulations, but also because of the
large number of incidents the commission would receive in a
year.
3:43:47 PM
MS. HEBDON answered because APOC does not currently have the
regulatory authority, the commission does not have any
foundational knowledge as to how many violations might occur.
Because of the definition of a governmental body, the
legislation would have far-reaching impacts all the way down to
local community councils. Given the size of the agency and what
the commission is currently responsible for, it is unrealistic
to think they could competently regulate this. She reiterated it
is unclear how these violations would be identified.
CHAIR HUGHES said she had not thought about the legislation
reaching down to the community council level, because that means
it would apply to hundreds if not thousands.
She asked Sara Chambers if she knew how many state and local
officials are in the state.
3:45:26 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development, Juneau, Alaska, replied she did not know
but she would refer the question to the director of the Division
of Community and Regional Affairs.
MS. CHAMBERS noted she was responsible for the 21 licensing
boards.
CHAIR HUGHES asked how the bill would apply to the licensing
boards.
MS. CHAMBERS answered the division has 21 boards that manage all
governing functions for half of the licensing programs. Since
the boards fall under the definition that is in the law as a
public official, they would be subject to a fine. The
department's concern is that board members are volunteers and
finding enough volunteers to meet certain criteria is already
difficult. The bill would be another deterrent and risk that
volunteers would take when they consider whether to serve the
state.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON noted that by charter the Municipality of
Anchorage Assembly is responsible for the 38 community councils
it established. She suggested making the Anchorage Assembly
responsible for identifying and fining those community councils
for violations of the Open Meetings Act.
3:47:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Chambers if boards and commission are
subject to the Open Meetings Act.
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes.
CHAIR HUGHES commented on the informal nature of community
council meetings and asked Ms. Wilterdink if the sponsor
intended the legislation to go to the community council level.
MS. WILTERDINK answered yes, the sponsor intended the bill to
cover everybody covered by the Open Meetings Act. The exceptions
are the legislature and the judiciary.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Wilterdink to provide the sectional
analysis for SB 15.
3:49:00 PM
MS. WILTERDINK read the sectional analysis for SB 15:
Section 1
AS 44.62.310(h), page 1, lines 4-6, is amended to
define the terms "knowingly" and "public official."
Under this section, "knowingly" has the meaning given
in AS 11.81.900(a)(2), "public official" has the
meaning given in AS 39.50.200(a)(9).
Section 2
Page 1, lines 7-10, is amended to add a civil penalty
of up to $1,000 for elected or appointed members of a
governmental body who knowingly attend a meeting that
violates the Open Meetings Act.
Section 3
Page 1, lines 11-14, and page 2, line 1, it provides
that the penalties added by this bill apply to
offenses occurring on or after the effective date of
this Act.
3:50:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked how the two statutory references define the
terms "knowingly" and "public officials."
MS. WILTERDINK answered her general understanding is that that
"public official" effectively is everybody who is not in the
legislature and not in the judiciary. The definition of
"knowingly" is as follows:
A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to
a circumstance described by a provision of law
defining an offense when the person is aware that the
conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance
exists.
When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact
is an element of an offense, that knowledge is
established if a person is aware of a substantial
probability of its existence, unless the person
actually believes it does not exist.
A person who is unaware of conduct or a circumstance
of which the person would have been aware had that
person not been intoxicated, acts knowingly with
respect to that conduct or circumstance.
3:52:03 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON noted that the Municipality of Anchorage
has its own ethics code and commission to address violations of
the Open Meetings Act. She asked how that works with this bill.
MS. WILTERDINK answered she would look into it and follow up
with the answer.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON added that the Municipality of Anchorage
also has a reprimand in code for violations, and how that works
with the bill should also be investigated.
CHAIR HUGHES opined that was important information to have on
the record. She offered her understanding that some municipal
officials raised this concern with the sponsor. She asked if
they filed a complaint through the Municipality of Anchorage.
MS. WILTERDINK replied she had not seen complaints to that
effect. She has seen some concerns about the bill that she was
happy to share with the committee.
3:54:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES held SB 15 in committee.