Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/12/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB30 | |
| HB26 | |
| HB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to performance reviews, audits, and
termination of executive and legislative branch
agencies, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska
Court System; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that a pending amendment for HB
30 had been discussed at the prior meeting. He MOVED
Amendment 1 in Representative Gara's absence.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki asked for an explanation of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked he was stalling for time and made
several comments about the amendment. He believed the
amendment recognized that cutting budgets was tough.
Representative Gara joined the meeting.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Gara to address the
amendment.
1:38:11 PM
AT EASE
1:38:40 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara addressed Amendment 1:
Page 5, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) If the agency is not able to identify 10 percent
of the general funds in the agency's budget
appropriated from the general fund that could be
reduced or eliminated using the criteria set out in
(c)(2)(A) - (C) of this section, the agency shall
identify which programs or elements of programs on the
list required under (c)(2) of this section do not meet
the criteria set out in (c)(2)(A) - (C) of this
section."
Representative Gara directed attention to page 5 of the
legislation. He explained that the amendment was intended
to provide the public and other legislators with additional
information that would enable them to understand the 10
percent budget cut suggestions required by the legislation.
He considered the amendment to be friendly. He furthered
that without the amendment people would receive a document
listing a series of cuts totaling 10 percent of an agency's
budget. He expounded that the bill asked agencies to
identify items that (A) did not serve a current need, (B)
were not authorized by the state's constitution, or (C)
were non-essential to the agency's mission. He stated that
if agencies could not find cuts under items (A) through (C)
they were directed to find cuts in low priority services.
The amendment specified that the report issued by
consultants should identify which of the standards the cuts
met. He referred to an opposition argument that the
amendment was unnecessary because the report would already
recognize which of the standards the proposed cuts met. He
countered that it may or may not; the amendment would
require it to do so. He emphasized that the amendment would
allow the public to see why the cut had been recommended.
He added that the amendment would ensure that agencies knew
why they had chosen the cuts they had.
1:41:59 PM
Representative Wilson expressed opposition to Amendment 1
and noted it had also been heard in a subcommittee meeting.
She was concerned that cuts may not always fit into one
distinct category. She believed the point of the exercise
was to identify proposed cuts based on the language
outlined in the bill. She opined that providing further
detail on why something had or had not been proposed for
cuts could be confusing.
Representative Costello spoke against the amendment. She
believed that the amendment weakened the legislation's
intention to ask some very difficult questions. She
stressed that the legislature, departments, agencies, and
the public would all be asking tough questions. She was
concerned that allowing the "out" would avoid the difficult
conversation. She had learned there would be opportunities
for public testimony. She stressed that working
collectively would help determine ways to move forward in a
less certain budget situation. She appreciated the
amendment's recognition that the process would not be easy
for anyone.
1:44:02 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that the amendment would allow
an agency to opt out of recommending 10 percent cuts if it
could not meet the criteria under (c)(2)(A). He believed
that public notice had been addressed. He pointed to
language that had been added in subcommittee (page 2, lines
5 through 8) related to the results of the review and
providing information to the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee (LB&A). He stated that the public would be aware
of the results when the audit was released.
Representative Gara asserted that Amendment 1 was not
intended to have the result discussed by Vice-Chair Neuman.
He explained that the amendment still required agencies to
identify 10 percent cuts. He stated that under the
legislation an agency would first look for items outlined
in (c)(2)(A) through (C) on page 5; if cuts could not be
found under the three categories the agency was required to
find other cuts (page 5, lines 9 and 10). He stressed that
the amendment would only require the disclosure of where
the cuts had come from; the disclosure would enable the
public to understand how the cuts had been identified by
auditors. He emphasized that the amendment would not change
the 10 percent requirement in the legislation.
Representative Thompson referred to page 5, lines 20 and 21
and read from the bill: "...including agency mission,
results-based measures, prioritization of core services,
and all programs within the core services from the most
important to the least important."
Representative Thompson concluded that the provision
requiring the information to be submitted to the
legislature [page 5, lines 18 through 21] would likely show
where the proposed cuts had come from.
Co-Chair Stoltze opined that the amendment provided an
"out" because it did not direct agencies to find the 10
percent cuts. He stated that the bill only required
agencies to make a recommendation; it did not mandate that
the legislature had to follow the recommendations. He saw
nothing wrong with asking agencies to designate the cuts
and noted that agencies could include a narrative if they
believed the cuts were not efficacious. He reiterated that
he was uncomfortable giving agencies an out from
identifying the cuts.
1:50:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, opposed the
amendment. He clarified that the review committee did not
make recommendations for agency cuts; departments would
make recommendations to the committee. He believed that if
department's could not locate the 10 percent cuts they
would have the ability to provide a narrative explaining
why they believed items were essential to their budget. He
understood the concerns, but believed departments would
provide commentary on the impact cuts would have on their
current budgets.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that he agreed with the sentiment
he had seen on a sign that stated: "if it's in the yellow
pages why is government doing it?"
Representative Kawasaki voiced support for Amendment 1. He
observed that if an agency was not able to make cuts
specified in (c)(2) (A) through (C) they would have to
justify the remaining cuts. He believed the information
would help the review team and the legislature to determine
if the cuts were feasible.
Representative Gara agreed that Co-Chair Stoltze's concern
was valid, but stressed that the amendment did not provide
an out to agencies. He clarified that the amendment did not
alter the bill's intent; it only had to do with the
commentary included in the report. He elaborated that the
amendment would require disclosure of where the cuts had
come from (either from (c)(2) (A) through (C) or from the
lowest priority services in the agency). He emphasized that
the amendment would not change the consultants' proposals.
He communicated that the amendment's purpose was to provide
information to the public.
1:55:36 PM
Representative Chenault underscored that the review team
would not be responsible for identifying the 10 percent
cuts; agencies would be in charge of bringing cuts forward
to the review team.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson,
Wilson, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (8/2).
Representative Costello addressed the bill's three fiscal
notes. The first was a zero note from the Office of
Management and Budget. The second note from the Division of
Legislative Audit included $642,300 for three positions in
FY 13, zero fiscal impact for FY 14, $1,351,900 for three
positions in FY 15, $1,198,900 for three positions in FY
16, $1,324,900 for three positions in FY 17, and $1,177,900
per year for three positions in FY 18 and FY 19.
1:58:35 PM
Representative Costello relayed that the last note had zero
fiscal impact and was from the Division of Legislative
Audit.
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the fiscal notes had
been discussed at the prior meeting. The notes addressed
the issue of potential contracting.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to report CSHB 30(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 30(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from
Division of Legislative Audit, one new zero fiscal note
from Legislative Finance Division, and one new zero fiscal
note from the Office of Management and Budget.
1:59:52 PM
AT EASE
2:00:27 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Audit Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Audit 08-20076-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 22 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 26 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB26 Audit Report Digest.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB26 Audit Public Accountantcy.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 30FN.3-Leg Audit-2-11-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB 30 Gara-1- Amendment.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |