Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/24/2021 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
HB109 | |
HB62 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 109-EXTEND BAR ASS'N BOARD OF GOVERNORS 1:44:45 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR CLAMAN noted this was the second hearing of HB 109 in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said the committee would now take up amendments. He stated for the record that Legislative Legal and Research Services has permission to make any technical and conforming changes to HB 109. 1:45:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32- LS0592\A.3, Fisher, 3/23/21, which read as follows: Page 1, line 2, following "Association;": Insert "relating to the selection of members for the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association;" Page 1, following line 6: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 08.08.050(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in (d) of this section, two [TWO] members of the board shall be elected by and from among the members of the association resident in the first judicial district; four members of the board shall be elected by and from among the members of the association resident in the third judicial district; two members by and from among the members of the association resident in the combined area of the second and fourth judicial districts; and one member of the board shall be elected at large by and from among the members of the association residing in the entire state. Three members who are not attorneys shall be appointed by the governor and are subject to confirmation by the legislature in joint session. * Sec. 3. AS 08.08.050(c) is amended to read: (c) Except as provided in (d) of this section, four [FOUR] board members shall be selected on the following triennial rotation: (1) in the first year, one member from the first judicial district, one member from the combined area of the second and fourth judicial districts, one member from the third judicial district, and one appointed member; (2) in the second year, one member at large, two members from the third judicial district, and one appointed member; and (3) in the third year, one member from the combined area of the second and fourth judicial districts, one member from the third judicial district, one member from the first judicial district, and one appointed member. * Sec. 4. AS 08.08.050 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) The Board of Governors may by regulation allocate the nine attorney member seats on the Board of Governors elected by the active members of the Alaska Bar under AS 08.08.040(a) to each judicial district in proportion to the number of active members of the Alaska Bar residing in each judicial district. The members of the board from each judicial district, as allocated under this subsection, shall be elected by and from the members of the association resident in that judicial district." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Page 1, line 7: Delete "This" Insert "Section 1 of this" 1:45:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. 1:45:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that AS 08.08.050 lays out the composition of [the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar] in relation to four judicial districts. He said this law was created in the 1950s, but the apportionment scheme has not been changed since 1971. He stated that Amendment 1 recognizes that this apportionment is outdated and would give the board the opportunity, not a mandate, to discuss amendment of the board selection process. 1:47:51 PM CHAIR CLAMAN noted those available for questions. 1:48:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to hear from anyone on the Alaska Bar Association regarding Amendment 1. 1:48:36 PM DANIELLE BAILEY, Executive Director, Alaska Bar Association, indicated that over the past 20 years population changes and attorney representation has been consistent, thus, she does not think Amendment 1 is necessary at this time. In response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, she stated the proportions and reiterated that they have remained consistent. She confirmed the relation between that consistency and the reason she said Amendment 1 is not needed. 1:50:58 PM BEN HOFFMEISTER, President, Alaska Bar Association, echoed that the board has had consistent representation and warned that "dilution of the ... other judicial districts" would "do a disservice to our membership." He talked about learning a lot from individuals from other parts of the state and explained that how things are done in one district's court differs from another. He opined that restructuring is not only unnecessary but also not required. 1:54:13 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman if there is a problem with the legislature's decision on this matter and why the legislature would want to give up that power. 1:54:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that the Alaska Bar Association is a private one. He listed the number of members currently in each judicial district, as laid out in statute, and he said Amendment 1 would allow the board to separate those districts, for example, to ensure a certain number of members from each district on the board. He questioned whether the association wants the legislature telling them how to run their affairs. 1:57:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to page 1 of an audit report, to the list of membership of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar, and she calculated that there are two members from the first judicial district, four members from the third judicial district, and two members from the second and fourth judicial districts. She questioned the necessity of Amendment 1, "since the organization appears to be self-selecting" just as is suggested in the proposed amendment; therefore, she said she would not support Amendment 1. 1:58:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would still like to know from the Bar Association whether its members think the decision is best left to the legislature. 1:59:47 PM MS. BAILEY said Amendment 1 allows the association flexibility only when doing proportional representation. She indicated that if Amendment 1 were adopted, the second judicial district would never get any representation because currently that district has only 24 members, and, taking into account the comments of Mr. Hoffmeister, she said she would be "worried about that." She added, "As to the larger question over who should have responsibility, that is something I'm not prepared to talk about and [which] I don't believe is actually reflected in the amendment." 2:00:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he supports Amendment 1. He alluded to the eight-year sunset and said that is a long time "to have things locked into statute." He said it probably does make sense to have some flexibility with the board. He said he disagreed with Ms. Bailey's reading of Amendment 1, and he emphasized the word "may" in the amendment. He said there are multiple options for apportionment. 2:02:09 PM CHAIR CLAMAN said this structure has been in place for 50 years, and multiple legislatures have had the opportunity to fix the system if they thought it was broken. The reasons for having the representation as structured ensure that the less represented areas of the state have a voice on the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar. He referred to Representative Eastman's spreadsheet and said if there was proportional representation on the board, the Anchorage Bar Association would essentially be running the state bar. He referred to a court case, Miller v. Carpeneti, from 2009, which notes that the one person/one vote topic does not apply to the board. CHAIR CLAMAN said there is good reason for the legislature to have said it wants rural areas of the state to be carefully considered. He explained that the board operates under Roberts Rules, which states that the president of the board votes only when his/her vote makes a difference. He continued, "And so, if you had one person from Southeast, Alaska, which proportional representation would bring you, or one person from ... the fourth judicial district, Fairbanks, which is what proportional representation would give you, on many occasions people from those regions would actually not get a vote on issues taken up by the board." Chair Claman noted that currently the three public members are all from the third judicial district in Anchorage, so the committee might actually consider an amendment that would require the governor to apportion his seat on the board so that other areas besides Anchorage would be represented. He explained that he was just pointing that out, not offering an amendment. He said for all those reasons, he thinks Amendment 1 is seeking a problem that does not exist, thus he urged a "no" vote on Amendment 1. 2:05:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, on page 2, line 9, [as numbered on the hardcopy of Amendment 1, in the paragraph that is the proposed new subsection (d) to AS 08.08.050], as follows: Between "each judicial district" and ", as allocated under" Insert ", subject to a minimum number of board members from each judicial district" 2:05:51 PM CHAIR CLAMAN objected. 2:06:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would ensure the board maintains the ability to ensure there is some level of representation from each judicial district. He said his intent is not to have the board become "lopsided." 2:07:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would "solve" the concerns voiced by the Alaska Bar Association representatives. 2:07:27 PM MS. BAILEY replied, "Again, I don't think an amendment is necessary." She reiterated that the number of attorneys in each district has been consistent over the last 20 years, so she does not think "a proportional response" is needed at this time. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA clarified he was asking about Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which would ensure proportionality, and he offered his understanding that that speaks directly to Ms. Bailey's concern. 2:08:17 PM CHAIR CLAMAN posited that Ms. Bailey had answered in stating that the amendment is not necessary because the existing structure works. 2:08:38 PM CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection. He noted that all members present were physically in the committee room [for consideration of who could be called on to vote]. 2:08:58 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kurka, Vance, and Eastman voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4. 2:09:54 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Kreiss- Tomkins, Drummond, Snyder, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4. 2:10:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32- LS0592\A.2, Fisher, 3/23/21, which read as follows: Page 1, line 6: Delete "2029" Insert "2025" 2:10:51 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:11 p.m. 2:11:42 PM CHAIR CLAMAN explained that simultaneously, the committee had taken the at-ease as Representative Snyder was objecting to Amendment 2. 2:12:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER confirmed, "yes." 2:12:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA spoke to Amendment 2. He said he thinks eight years is a long time to go between audits and four would be better. 2:13:03 PM CHAIR CLAMAN sought to discover the timing of sunsets on this matter historically. 2:13:41 PM MS. BAILEY listed the last audits as having occurred July 2012, November 2008, and November 2006. She offered her understanding that switching the audits to eight-year intervals was because "doing a legislative audit every so often was actually taxing on both legislative staff and on Bar staff." 2:14:29 PM KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division, offered her understanding that up until 2006 "the maximum allowed for in statute" was four years. She asked the committee to keep that in mind while making comparisons. 2:14:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that Ms. Bailey had said it was four years between 2006 and the following audit. MS. CURTIS offered her understanding that it was "four, six, eight." She stated that numerous factors can be weighed when considering a recommended term of extension. The most important is whether the board is serving the public's interest and whether it should be extended. She said she also considers the division's workload. In addition to the mandated audits for that which is in statute, the division also does the financial audit of the state and the state's federal single audit. Further, the division performs special audits at the request of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. There are limited resources. She recommended scheduling an audit every eight years, because reducing that interval means that the division will [expend] additional resources "earlier on" and have fewer resources available to do other things at the request of the legislature. She said there is a cost to the legislature for an audit. She relayed that the cost of auditing "a fairly clean board" can run between 350 and 550 hours at a current rate of $80 an hour. In response to a follow-up question, she said there is no average in terms of the length of an audit. 2:17:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reflected that Ms. Curtis was saying that the length between audits depends on the division's finding; for a board with a lot of issues, the division would recommend a shorter period before the next audit took place; and with no issues with the association in question, Ms. Curtis is recommending the eight-year interval. She asked if that was the maximum number of years. 2:18:21 PM MS. CURTIS responded that eight years is "the maximum allowed for in statute." In response to Representative Drummond's summarization, she explained that it is not so "cut and dried." She said if she knows the division will be doing a lot of audits in eight years, she may recommend seven years, for example; the timing is influenced by the management of the division's projects. 2:19:13 PM CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the Alaska Bar Association is run under supervision of the [Alaska] Supreme Court, which he speculated is one reason why "they have a long history of doing very well on the audits and running a pretty tight ship." He said he thinks the eight-year interval recommended by the Legislative Audit Division is reasonable; therefore, he does not support Amendment 2. 2:19:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he still thinks eight years is a long time. He expressed appreciation for the remarks made by Ms. Curtis, but remarked on the responsibility legislators have to their constituents and maintained his support for returning to four years. 2:20:17 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kurka, and Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Snyder, Drummond, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-3. 2:21:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed appreciation for the work the association has done with the legislature regarding the audit and encouraged updates for the legislature when the remaining items in the audit are addressed. 2:22:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed his appreciation for the work of the association and the audit, and he stated his support for HB 109. 2:22:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 109 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 109 was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 109 v. A 2.22.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 109 Sponsor Statement v. A 3.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 109 Additional Document - A Sunset Review of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association 6.9.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 109 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.21.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 109 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD 3.24.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 109 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.24.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
HB 62 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
HB 62 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/25/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
HB 62 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/25/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
HB 62 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 2.19.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
HB 57 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |