Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/03/2022 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 | |
| HB387 | |
| 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 | |
| *+ | HB 387 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 71-COUNCIL ON ARTS: PLATES & MANAGE ART
3:08:41 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."
3:08:58 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:09:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the $50 fee on page 2,
line 3 of SB 71.
3:11:23 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Stevens, prime sponsor,
clarified that the fee in question would be added to the cost of
the specialty license plate, which was priced at $30. He
conveyed that the plan was to set the additional fee at $3 or
$4; however, the bill language would give the Alaska State
Council on the Arts (ASCA) the latitude to increase that fee
over time to an amount not to exceed $50.
MR. LAMKIN, in response to a follow up question from
Representative Eastman, reported that the license plates'
initial price varied from $30 to $100. He noted that there was
a subsequent renewal price as well.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the initial price
of the license plates was determined by ASCA.
MR. LAMKIN understood that ASCA had the statutory authority to
determine an amount not to exceed $50.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the price was "separate" for a
second iteration of the same plate.
MR. LAMKIN deferred to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA).
3:14:41 PM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, asked Representative Eastman to
repeat the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that his question was in regard to
replacement plates. He observed that the initial issuance cost
$50; however, there was no charge for the second issuance. He
asked why that was.
MR. SCHMITZ explained that the artistic plate was issued to
citizens for free upon initial registration with an additional
charge of $30 for personalization, which was optional. However,
under the proposed legislation, ASCA could charge up to $50 for
the initial issuance of that particular plate, which was the
most popular choice, as opposed to being free upon initial
registration.
3:16:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that there was no fee
associated with the second issuance, as the DMV was unsure of
how many people would pay for the first issuance.
MR. SCHMITZ clarified that there was a replacement fee of $5.
3:17:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about ASCA's funding structure.
He sought to confirm that it consisted of general fund (GF)
funding and matching federal funding.
MR. LAMKIN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN surmised that the proposed legislation
was an effort to create an additional revenue stream, which
would displace some of the funding from the GF.
MR. LAMKIN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that the anticipated
initial buy-in for the license plates was forecasted to be 3,097
[plates] at a cost of $50 to generate $154,850.
MR. LAMKIN said, "That sounds right based on memory."
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there were additional
funding sources.
MR. LAMKIN pointed out that he was not an expert on financial
mechanics.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Mr. Brown, chair of ASCA.
3:20:24 PM
BENJAMIN BROWN, Chair, Alaska State Council on the Arts,
explained that as a state arts agency, ASCA was federally
required to receive money from the National Endowment for the
Arts to provide a state appropriated match, which must be
undesignated general fund (UGF) or designated general fund (DGF)
money. He reported that the approximate amount was $700,000.
He explained the intent behind the license plate provision was
to continue a successful program that put art by an Alaskan
artist on cars across the state and to generate a modest amount
of funding to offset the amount of UGF that the legislature
appropriates to make the required match to the National
Endowment on the Arts. He reported that the remainder of ASCA's
budget came from private foundation partners including (indisc.)
philanthropies and the Rasmuson Foundation.
3:23:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opined that the artistic license program
had been a massive success; nonetheless, he highlighted the time
and effort it required, which justified the modest fees.
3:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the fund was sweepable.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that per Legislative Legal Services,
the fund was not sweepable.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared that the fund was not sweepable
according to the Department of Law's perspective.
3:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, "Can you explain why we shouldn't
be concerned that this would be declared ? sweepable?"
3:26:11 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, stated
that, per Section 6 of the bill, the fund would not be sweepable
because the money in the fund could be spent by the council
without further appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN addressed conflict of interest. He
directed attention to Section 5 of the bill and asked whether a
conflict of interest would always be determined by the attorney
general (AG) if the council was seeking legal advice regarding
vetoed funding.
MS. RADFORD explained that if the bill were to pass, the council
would have the ability to employ temporary legal counsel with
the approval of the AG for good cause. Additionally, the bill
provided that the AG may not unreasonably withhold approval.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked why the AG had the ability to
approve the council's request to seek outside counsel if a
conflict of interest existed between the two entities.
MS. RADFORD said it was a policy decision.
3:29:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his confusion. He shared his
understanding that for conflicts purposes, the AG was thought of
as a single firm that could not represent two parties with
adverse interests. He asked if that was accurate.
MS. RADFORD believed that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether the AG had discretion
under the scenario in which a conflict existed between ASCA's
interests and the AG's interests and asked how the AG could have
any discretion. Further, if a conflict existed, he sought to
confirm that the AG was required to decline the opportunity to
represent that entity.
MS. RADFORD referred to Section 5, subsection (b) of the bill.
She offered to follow up with the requested information, noting
that she was unfamiliar with the day-to-day operations of the
Office of the Attorney General.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested that the council should have the
right to review counsel if there was a conflict of interest with
the AG. He indicated that he was suggesting an alternative
approach because he could not foresee a circumstance in which
the conflict wouldn't exist.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Mr. Brown.
3:31:32 PM
MR. BROWN recalled a personal anecdote in which the AG attempted
to create a firewall by providing temporary legal counsel to two
agencies so as to avoid being unreasonably and impermissibly
conflicted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Mr. Brown was
recalling an experience from his time as the commissioner of the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
MR. BROWN said yes, when the Walker Administration was
attempting to substantially rewrite the Limited Entry Act with
an administrative order, which was perceived by CFEC as
unconstitutional. He recalled that an assistant AG was assigned
to CFEC to provide legal advice.
3:35:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how the conflict with CFEC
concluded.
MR. BROWN recalled that another litigant had sued the
administration, thus challenging the action to which CFEC was
opposed. Because of that, he explained that CFEC no longer felt
pressured to take that step, as the remedy was being pursued by
an entity that was aligned with the commissioner's beliefs.
MR. LAMKIN noted that [Section 5] was modeled after existing
language that applied to CFEC.
3:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that there may be other reasons
to seek outside counsel aside from conflicts within the
administration. She asked if that was true.
MR. BROWN said it's possible, as the potential for litigation
and the need for legal advice could always arise.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how ASCA would pay for inter-agency
receipt authority to employ outside counsel.
MR. BROWN explained that the board of trustees would need to
come up with a budget revision to reallocate funds in strict
compliance with ASCA's contractual agreement with its foundation
partners.
3:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether state match money would be
used for that purpose.
MR. BROWN pointed out that it was hard to respond to a
hypothetical scenario. He maintained that ASCA would work with
its staff to resolve the crisis; further, that ASCA would never
violate state or federal law or a contractual agreement with a
funding partner.
3:43:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 5, which
stated "The attorney general is the legal counsel for the
council". He suggested that the language in question was
imposing a duty on the AG. He asked what options would be
available to the AG if a conflict of interest were to arise.
MS. RADFORD pointed out that the AG was legal counsel for a
number of other commissions and agencies in statute, such as the
State Commission for Human Rights and the Occupational Safety
and Health Review Board (OSHRB). As far as available options,
she deferred to the Office of the Attorney General.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the implications of
potentially eliminating the paragraph dealing with "first
issuance" in Section 1 of the bill [page 2, lines 6-8].
MS. RADFORD said if that language was removed, there wouldn't be
a set time for fee collection; further, it would be unclear
whether the fee would only apply to first issuance or if it
would apply to additional issuances as well.
3:46:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether anything would preclude a
legal defense fund from funding [outside counsel].
MR. BROWN could think of no reason why that couldn't happen.
3:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN provided an anecdotal example of an art
exhibit that was perceived to be pornographic. If ASCA and the
governor disagreed on bringing that exhibit to Alaska, he
wondered whether there would be a need for outside counsel.
MS. RADFORD said she was unfamiliar with the example referenced
by Representative Claman. She offered to follow up with a
response at the next bill hearing.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested holding off on questions relating
to Section 5 until DOL was available to respond.
3:52:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to further understand the
responsibility of the executive branch, asking when they would
carry out the will of the administration versus their own wants
and needs.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR posed a question pertaining to Section 5.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected the conversation to other
sections of the bill.
3:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that a new section was added
under Section 2, which would give the council the responsibility
of managing the relocation, disposition, and exchange of works
of art. He asked who was currently responsible for managing the
art.
MR. BROWN answered the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF). He stated that there was no statutory
provision to deal with the "end of life" in terms of buildings;
therefore, he believed it was prudent to create a mechanism for
dealing with the art in decommissioned buildings, so that the
public investment was not lost. He proceeded to distinguish
between the Percent for Art Program and the Alaska Contemporary
Art Bank (ACAB).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN speculated that a fire station or police
department may need to interact with the council regarding the
acquired art in the building; however, he claimed that the fire
station or police department "may not want to have that
interaction."
MR. BROWN assured Representative Eastman that ASCA had
"wonderful and lovely" staff, adding that there was no need for
any fire department to be hesitant about interacting with the
council. He reiterated that the intent was to implement best
practices so that the public investment was not lost, and the
artist's work was dealt with respectfully.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the council's position would
be if its responsibility was limited to the construction or
demolition of the building to clarify that ASCA had no authority
while the building was being used.
MR. BROWN emphasized that the language was drafted to allow the
council to adopt policies that would implement the percent for
art statute. In the process of developing policies, he assured
Representative Eastman that ASCA would request public input and
rely on DOT&PF. He believed the result would mirror
Representative Eastman's vision without needing to change the
bill language. He maintained that the intent was to avoid
stranding a public investment in a decommissioned public
building.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his concern that the council
may have a different interpretation of how to process art at end
of its life than a fire station, for example. He restated his
proposal to narrow the provision, such that it wouldn't apply
while the building was in use. He asked the sponsor to opine on
his suggestion.
MR. LAMKIN shared his understanding that the art was an
investment of public dollars and thereby property of the State
of Alaska. For that reason, ASCA was the proper agency to
manage that property.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that ASCA would be most equipped to
manage and store the art.
MR. BROWN envisioned best practices involving the people who had
utilized the building over its useful life. He stated that
ASCA's goal was to encourage the creation and enjoyment of art
in the daily life of all Alaskans, which the policy of
decommissioning, relocating and disposing of public art would
further.
4:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referring to the fiscal note, asked what
specific regulatory changes would be paid for by the one-time
increment of $6,000.
MR. LAMKIN pointed out that the language in question was
commonly included in the implementation of new regulations. He
believed it was a generic figure.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked which regulations it pertained to.
MR. LAMKIN deferred to Ms. Noble, ASCA.
4:08:19 PM
ANDREA NOBLE, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the
Arts, shared her understanding that the fees totaling $6,000
were a conservative estimate for the purpose of coordinating
between departments and staffing public hearings.
4:09:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on SB 71.
4:10:12 PM
JUNE ROGERS expressed her full support for ASCA and SB 71.
4:12:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony.
4:12:33 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:12:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reopened public testimony on SB 71.
4:13:05 PM
ANITA LAULAINEN said she was the winner of the inaugural Alaska
artistic license plate competition. She recounted her
experience winning the competition and the impact it had on her
career both financially and creatively. She concluded by
expressing her gratitude for the opportunity and her continued
surprise at the popularity of the design, which helped highlight
the local art community. She stated her full support for SB 71.
4:16:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony. He announced that
SB 71 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 387 Fiscal Note LEG-COU-02-28-22.pdf |
HSTA 3/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 387 |
| HB 387 Sectional Analysis 3.3.2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 387 |
| HB 387 Sponsor Statement 3.3.2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 387 |
| HB 387 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 3/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 387 |