Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB278 | |
HB127 | |
HB21 | |
HB127 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 127 "An Act clarifying that the Alaska Bar Association is an agency for purposes of investigations by the ombudsman; relating to compensation of the ombudsman and to employment of staff by the ombudsman under personal service contracts; providing that certain records of communications between the ombudsman and an agency are not public records; relating to disclosure by an agency to the ombudsman of communications subject to attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges; relating to informal and formal reports of opinions and recommendations issued by the ombudsman; relating to the privilege of the ombudsman not to testify and creating a privilege under which the ombudsman is not required to disclose certain documents; relating to procedures for procurement by the ombudsman; relating to the definition of 'agency' for purposes of the Ombudsman Act and providing jurisdiction of the ombudsman over persons providing certain services to the state by contract; and amending Rules 501 and 503, Alaska Rules of Evidence." 9:14:15 AM Co-Chair Stoltze noted his successful effort in determining a lack of objection to the legislation from the Office of Victims' Rights. Co-Chair Austerman informed the committee that the bill's sponsor was the House Rules Committee by request. He wondered who requested the legislation. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the Office of the Ombudsman requested the bill. 9:15:16 AM Representative Costello discussed the bill's four zero fiscal notes. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the agency existed in the legislature's budget. Vice-Chair Neuman asked about page 2, lines 9 and 10. He discussed the confidential negotiations with the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC). He asked if the ombudsman's office would have access to the state agency's records of the confidential hearings. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that he did not know the answer. Representative Thompson echoed the concerns of Vice-Chair Neuman. He wondered if the agency's authority was too broad. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would hold the bill until the concerns of the members could be alleviated. [Note: Further discussion and action on CSHB 127 (JUD) can be found later in this meeting.] HOUSE BILL NO. 127 "An Act clarifying that the Alaska Bar Association is an agency for purposes of investigations by the ombudsman; relating to compensation of the ombudsman and to employment of staff by the ombudsman under personal service contracts; providing that certain records of communications between the ombudsman and an agency are not public records; relating to disclosure by an agency to the ombudsman of communications subject to attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges; relating to informal and formal reports of opinions and recommendations issued by the ombudsman; relating to the privilege of the ombudsman not to testify and creating a privilege under which the ombudsman is not required to disclose certain documents; relating to procedures for procurement by the ombudsman; relating to the definition of 'agency' for purposes of the Ombudsman Act and providing jurisdiction of the ombudsman over persons providing certain services to the state by contract; and amending Rules 501 and 503, Alaska Rules of Evidence." 10:00:56 AM Co-Chair Stoltze discussed HB 127. He acknowledged that the testifiers were online to speak about the bill. LINDA LORD-JENKINS, STATE OMBUDSMAN, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), stated that she was available. Vice-Chair Neuman asked about page 2, paragraph 4, section 3 related to records for every state agency. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the bill stated "every agency" as opposed to "every state agency." Ms. Lord-Jenkins deferred the question to Ms. Leibowitz. Co-Chair Stoltze requested an opinion about the policy's intent from Ms. Lord-Jenkins. Ms. Lord-Jenkins replied that the policy intended to have the statute conform to other provisions allowing access to information from investigated agencies. She noted that the "state agency proviso" would limit the reach. She mentioned other limited records that were not accessible. 10:03:53 AM Vice-Chair Neuman asked which agencies were reviewed. He wondered the scope of the ombudsman's abilities during a complaint. He mentioned that some municipalities had considered property taxes related to the gas line. He wondered if a complaint from a municipality would yield the ability for the ombudsman to review confidential gas line materials. Ms. Lord-Jenkins replied that the ombudsman had statutory authority to review each agency of the state government regarding the gas line issues and individual community concerns. She admitted that her office was more apt to view citizen complaints. She stated that individual communities would be better rectified in a court of law. The ombudsman could not force an agency to pay a fine or compensation to an aggrieved party. 10:06:31 AM Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the ombudsman's ability to review terms by the Legislative Budget and Audit division. He wondered if a complaint related to the appropriate nature of building contracts could be reviewed by the ombudsman. Ms. Lord-Jenkins interpreted the statute to allow the investigation of legislative agencies with the exemption of the Office of Victims' Rights. She mentioned occasional complaints related to legislative agencies and aides. She interpreted that the ombudsman would have access to the mentioned contracts as would the Legislative Council. Vice-Chair Neuman referred to section 6, page 3 and "the procedure shall be followed by the office in a professional." He asked if the section referred to all state agencies. BETH LEIBOWITZ, OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN, JUNEAU (via teleconference) requested question clarification. She stated that section 6 addressed procurement for the ombudsman office. Vice-Chair Neuman understood. He asked about the authority related to the terms "otherwise erroneous." 10:10:22 AM Ms. Leibowitz replied that "otherwise erroneous" was a catch-all category that was rarely used. She mentioned the other appropriate terms related to complaints such as "arbitrary, oppressive, unfair, and contrary to law." Co-Chair Stoltze did not disagree with the bill. He opined that the legislation included good policy provisions. He noted that the fiscal notes were discussed earlier in the meeting. 10:11:36 AM Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 127 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 127 (JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with two new zero fiscal notes from the Department of Administration, one new zero fiscal note from the Legislature and one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 278 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-GH2716-G.pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 278 |
HB 278 Summary of Changes HB 278 - CS(FIN).pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 278 |