Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2022 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 | |
| HJR29 | |
| SB71 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 71-COUNCIL ON ARTS: PLATES & MANAGE ART
3:27:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(FIN), "An Act relating to
special request registration plates celebrating the arts;
relating to artwork in public buildings and facilities; relating
to the management of artwork under the art in public places
fund; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska State
Council on the Arts; establishing the Alaska arts and cultural
investment fund; and providing for an effective date."
3:28:05 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
introduced SB 71. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Senate Bill 71 was introduced at the request of the
Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA).
ASCA is the state arts agency for Alaska, and exists
to promote the creation, enjoyment, and practice of
the arts by all Alaskans.
ASCA was founded in 1966 by passage of its enabling
legislation by the 4th Alaska State Legislature. In
2017 the 30th State Legislature passed House Bill 137
which re-designated ASCA as a public corporation and
governmental instrumentality of the State of Alaska
and restructured the agency. In 2019 ASCA was shut
down for several months following the veto of all its
funding in late June. The Legislature restored funding
in July, and the funds remained in the budget signed
into law in August 2019.
When ASCA re-opened following the period of time in
which the agency was not in operation, its Board of
Trustees sought out ways in which operations could be
improved. Some of the possible changes they identified
require statutory changes. SB 71 contains four
discrete provisions which are meant to allow for more
stable operations of the ASCA.
First, SB 71 would attach a surcharge to the highly
successful Alaska Artistic License Plate Program
launched with the passage of SB 154 by the 29th State
Legislature (2016), and modified by the passage of SB
204 in the 30th Legislature (2018). The bill would
allow ASCA to set the amount of the surcharge in an
amount not to exceed $50 as a means of generating
income to help support ASCA's operations.
Second, this legislation clarifies ASCA's management
responsibility for public artwork created through its
programs, to include the management of the relocation,
disposition, or exchange of such artwork.
Third, this legislation would codify the existing
practice of the Department of Law serving as legal
counsel for ASCA. This comports with normal operating
procedures for agencies of the State of Alaska.
Fourth, SB 71 provides ASCA with the means to maintain
and strengthen its partnerships with non-profit
foundation supporters, which have been very successful
in recent years, and which now result in over half of
ASCA's operating budget coming from non-governmental
sources. The statutory changes proposed in SB 71 would
hold harmless, ASCA's private-sector fund raising
efforts in the state budget process.
Thank you for your consideration of this important
piece of legislation.
3:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the legal counsel referred
to in Section 5 of the bill.
3:29:50 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Stevens, prime sponsor of SB
71, explained that the addition in Section 5 was in response to
processes that occurred during the budget cycle, which required
representation that put the Department of Law (DOL) in conflict
with the Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA). He deferred
to Mr. Brown for a more thorough explanation.
3:30:43 PM
BENJAMIN BROWN, Chair, Alaska State Council on the Arts,
recalled that the governor vetoed ASCA funding in 2019, which
created challenges for the council. He said in response to
those vetoes, he reached out to the assistant attorney general
(AG) at DOL for legal advice regarding the agency shut down.
The assistant AG also represents the Department of Education &
Early Development (DEED), he noted. He reported that per the
Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney cannot
represent two clients with adverse interests; therefore, DOL
could not represent both ASCA and DEED. He said he didn't want
to see the assistant AG put in that difficult position, so he
wanted to create a provision in the enabling statute for ASCA
that would allow a different attorney than the one representing
DEED to be assigned.
3:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wondered whether Section 5 would be
effectively telling the assistant AG that he/she could not help
the administration implement that policy agenda.
3:35:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR contextualized the situation previously
described by Mr. Brown.
3:36:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the Alaska arts and cultural
investment fund was "sweepable."
MR. LAMKIN referenced AS 37.05.142 pertaining to program
receipts. He explained that as a public corporation, ASCA dealt
with public and private moneys simultaneously. He indicated
that the proposed legislation provided that money gathered from
private donors would be held harmless in the event of a vetoed
budget.
3:37:58 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to Representative Story, believed that
the funds would be sweepable. He explained that the bill
delineated that the Alaska arts and cultural investment fund was
composed of private foundation funds invested by partners, such
as the Rasmuson Foundation, in the work done as a public
corporation of the state. He added that the bill illustrated
that the funds were different than designated and undesignated
general funds. He shared his understanding that it wouldn't
make a practical difference in terms of "sweepability."
3:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated her interest in learning whether
the fund was sweepable.
3:39:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:40:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would prefer if the fund was "non-
sweepable."
3:40:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his interest in seeing a written
response from the AG on the "sweepability" of these funds to
gain clarity on the issue.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
3:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which provision in the bill
pertained to holding the funds harmless.
MR. LAMKIN said he would need a moment to review the bill.
3:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that it was
Section 6 of the bill.
3:42:12 PM
MR. LAMKIN noted that AS 44.27.059 was outside of the Executive
Budget Act and therefore, the receipt authority would not be
subject to an outright veto. He deferred to Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN agreed with Representative Claman that a position from
the AG on the fund's "sweepability" would be welcome.
3:43:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill would curtail the
legislature or the governor's ability to limit or veto receipt
authority.
3:44:46 PM
MR. BROWN stated his understanding that Representative Eastman
was asking whether the bill would diminish legislative
appropriation authority or the governor's veto authority, adding
that the answer was no. He explained that the legislature would
still have to give ASCA the ability to receive statutorily
designated program receipts that would go into a fund, which was
different than the current structure. He noted that in the
event that the council were vetoed "out of existence" again, the
process for accounting for or returning those funds would be
clearer. He added that the primary intent was to ensure that
the funds were in a specific place, so investing entities had a
degree of confidence as to where they were.
3:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN contended that the question for the
committee was whether funds donated to the ASCA by nonstate
government entities or money appropriated by the legislature to
the ASCA should be sweepable. He said he had "no confidence"
that 35.06. answered that question in the current environment,
opining that clarity needed to be determined and clearly
provided in the legislation. He reiterated his belief that
prospective counsel should weigh in, as they would be
responsible for litigating any future lawsuit on "sweepability."
3:48:36 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. O'Sullivan to speak to the
"sweepability" of the fund being established under SB 71 and
funds like it.
3:49:23 PM
KELLY O'SULLIVAN, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
shared her understanding that the fund would not be sweepable
because money appropriated to the fund could be spent without
further appropriation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. O'Sullivan could assess
how the administration might perceive the fund's "sweepability."
MS. O'SULLIVAN suspected that the administration would determine
the fund as non-sweepable.
3:50:42 PM
MS. O'SULLIVAN, in response to a question from Representative
Tarr, shared her understanding that the significant language was
"to carry out the purposes of this chapter" on page 3, lines 27-
28; however, she noted that she was not an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked where "sweepability" was addressed in
the bill.
MS. O'SULLIVAN said in general, if a fund was established that
could be spent without further appropriation, it was subject to
the sweep.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered to follow up with Legislative Legal
Services.
3:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 6 and asked
what would happen with donations received by ASCA if the
legislature did not make an annual appropriation to the fund.
MS. O'SULLIVAN stated that typically, the money would stay in
the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to page 3, lines 24-25 and sought to
clarify whether donations would lapse.
MS. O'SULLIVAN replied "Typically, donations do not lapse."
3:54:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referencing page 3, lines 22-24, provided
a scenario in which $100 was contributed to ASCA. He asked
whether that $100 would be a contribution to the general fund
(GF), which would then be appropriated by the legislature to the
Alaska arts and cultural investment fund. He asked whether that
was accurate.
MS. O'SULLIVAN said generally, all money appropriated to the
fund, including donations and GF program receipts, were included
in the appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question, seeking to confirm
whether a donation was effectually a contribution to the GF that
was then appropriated by the legislature to the ASCA.
MS. O'SULLIVAN believed that was true, as typically, moving
money into a fund required an appropriation. She suggested
following up with Legislative Legal Services.
3:56:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated his prior question, asking
whether Section 5 created an impediment to the AG carrying out
the administration's policy decision regarding ASCA.
MR. BROWN shared a personal anecdote. He said ultimately, it
would not impede the governor from carrying out his policy
objective, it would just provide adequate legal representation
to both entities as those policy decisions unfolded.
3:59:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the council would be
opposed to distinguishing between counsel in an advisory
capacity versus counsel in a representative capacity to avoid a
scenario in which the state was suing itself.
MR. BROWN believed that was not a necessary step, as it would
not comport with the way law was practiced in Alaska and the
U.S.
4:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested hearing from the AG at the next
bill hearing to gain perspective on the conflict-of-interest
issue.
MR. LAMKIN noted that the issue was covered quite a bit in the
Senate, which led to an amendment that added the language on
page 3, lines 17-18.
4:02:19 PM
MR. BROWN pointed out that ASCA had endeavored to work with
Governor Dunleavy and the administration on this legislation.
He believed that the governor was ready to sign the bill into
law if passed by the House.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said with all respect to the work done in
the Senate, the committee would still like to hear from DOL.
4:03:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the council's funding
structure.
4:04:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS held that line of questioning for the next
bill hearing. He announced that SB 71 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB071_ArtsCouncil_SamplePlates_PlateDemand_07Feb2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| HJR 29 Hearing Request memo.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR 29 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| SB 71 Fiscal Note EED-ASCA-1-11-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV-1-24-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| HJR 29 Sponsor Statement 03.01.2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HB 234 Amendment I.10 by Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Amendment packet with votes - H STA 03.01.22.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |