Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 531 - ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES Number 220 CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 531 for discussion. (REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG left the meeting at 9:00 a.m.) Number 234 KRISTIE LEAF, DIRECTOR BOARDS & COMMISSIONS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, addressed HB 531. She said HB 531 is a governmental efficiency bill. HB 531 updates statutes for about nine state boards which are not funded, appointed or meeting. She noted some of the boards have been dormant between 10-20 years. These boards should be taken off the books because they have no constituencies or members. MS. LEAF stated HB 531 streamlines procedures associated with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency and the Board of Parole. HB 531 eliminates the statutory Alaska School Activities Association because there is now a nonprofit organization, Alaska School Activities Association, Inc. The state would be removed from any liability for the private nonprofit organization. MS. LEAF stated HB 531 transfers the duties of the Museum Collections Advisory Committee to the Department of Education, and eliminates the committee. She noted the committee is very costly and redundant for a very modest program. MS. LEAF mentioned HB 531 has zero fiscal notes from all affected agencies. She directed the committees to the sectional analysis in their packets. Number 261 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the action regarding the Museum Collection Advisory Committee (MCAC). She noted the MCAC was still very active in protecting the $24 million in investments the state has made in acquisitions. If volunteers were not doing it, the state would have to hire other people to do it. Why was the elimination of the MCAC included in HB 531 when it is an efficiency. MS. LEAF answered the MCAC currently costs about $25,000 in direct and indirect costs. Their acquisition budget is about $50,000. Safeguards were not set up for the MCAC procedures when it began. Currently, the museum department has an internal review process for acquisitions and deaccessions from the museum collections. Therefore, the MCAC is a redundant function. She noted the museum department has proposed an additional procedure as to how the functions of the MCAC will be handled. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 531 proposed eliminating the Milk Board. MS. LEAF affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY. Number 293 CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired why the state was regulating milk. MS. LEAF replied she could not. The Milk Board currently exists in statute with its functions. The intent of HB 531 is to alleviate a board which has not met in 15 years. The board's functions would be transferred to the Director of Agriculture. The Milk Board's duty had been to advise the director in forming policy for the market program, receive complaints, report to the director and assist him in data collection. Number 311 CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned the Parole Board, and stated they believe HB 531 codifies their current procedure for conducting business. The Parole Board had expressed to him a different procedure would require a full-time Parole Board. MS. LEAF replied that was correct. Number 317 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted a house cleaning measure on the Railroad Labor Relations Agency. Current statute provides in a binding arbitration action, the arbitrator be the same person as the mediator, which is contrary to federal regulations. HB 531 would bring Alaska statutes in line. Number 329 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred back to the MCAC and asked what the breakdown was of their direct and indirect costs. She noted the availability of teleconferences which would cut down on travel expenses. She emphasized her concern about only having an internal review process in purchasing acquisitions. She noted the potential for lack of expertise without the MCAC. The external public participation process could guarantee no "insider trading." MS. LEAF deferred the answer to REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's comments to GEORGE SMITH. Number 361 GEORGE SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES & MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, answered questions on HB 531. The MCAC was organized in the early 1970s because there were virtually no controls over the actions of the museum. Acquisitions were then made by trading off artifacts out of the museum. He emphasized this was no longer appropriate. MCAC was enacted to provide oversight for acquisitions, as well as deaccessioning materials out of the museum collection. MR. SMITH stated currently, the museum staff expertise is very high. Very strong internal controls now exist for how materials are accessioned. First, the curator of collections makes a recommendation for purchase. A committee of five, whose expertise is quite varied, review the recommendation for what it will do for the collection, as well as appropriateness. If the recommendation is chosen to be purchased it goes to the chief curator of the museum. If the purchase is under $1,000, it may be approved by the chief curator and then purchased. If it is over $1,000, the MCAC review is required. He recollected the MCAC has never opposed a recommendation. The recommendation is then signed off and purchased. He estimated the museum purchases 5-10 items in a year out of its $50,000 acquisitions budget. MR. SMITH stated, because of their wide expertise and perspectives, the internal controls should be able to takeover the MCAC. He noted the likelihood of collusion was extremely remote. He advised after the recommendation was to proceed through the same internal procedures, when signed off by the chief curator, it would have to be signed off by the director of the division, as well as the commissioner. (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 9:09 a.m.) MR. SMITH commented deaccessioning is "almost a mute point." The commissioner of the Department of Administration must approve all deaccessioning which involves the museum. He noted the MCAC does not have oversight of the $25 million collection, automated internal auditing does. MR. SMITH explained most of the MCAC meetings are by teleconference; however, 1-2 times a year they meet in person. He noted the overwhelming cost was the administrative cost of the museum staff. Number 454 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked about the approval of gifts. He expressed concern because a lot of money is spent on storing gifts. MR. SMITH deferred the answer to BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR. He noted the museum does have the right to reject gifts, and it does. They use the same criteria for choosing a gift as they do when examining a purchase. The internal committee questions if it fits into the collection, if it is appropriate and if it is conservable. Number 478 BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR, ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, answered questions on HB 531. He stated he is responsible for the state museum programs and the Alaska State Museum, Juneau, and the Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka. He explained HB 531 would streamline the acquisition process. He stated the change was driven by costs for the implementation of the MCAC. Their budget allows $13,000 in travel expenditures, of which $7,000 is expended for MCAC travel. He noted the MCAC is out of compliance because current statute requires two face to face visits a year. They had substituted one of the meetings with a teleconference. He questioned the use of having MCAC members from around the state, as opposed to local members, to avoid the cost. MR. KATO expressed for the amount of money they make acquisitions with, the MCAC is not justifiable. They have enough internal controls to oversee the process. He compared the cost of the MCAC with how much they currently pay for their insurance policy. They carry a $40,000 policy in the event there is some damage to their collections. With a $25 million almost irreplaceable collection, the $40,000 is essentially "thrown away." Number 524 CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if the insurance the museum is buying is $40,000 in coverage, or is the insurance premium $40,000. Number 526 MR. KATO answered $40,000 is the premium they pay for $25 million in coverage. He stated many museums do not carry insurance because if there was a substantial loss it would already be irreplaceable. MR. KATO referred to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's question about donations. Their controls have been successful in purging items, by auction for example, which are not appropriate for their collection. He gave the example of a Navajo blanket. The money then goes back into their collections funds for reallocation. (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS rejoined the meeting at 9:20 a.m.) Number 544 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what they received for the Navajo blanket. Number 545 MR. KATO answered a spruce root basket. Number 547 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented she did not mean to suggest she distrusted the staff, but she had to consider future Administrations which may have to work without the MCAC. MCAC works as a safeguard to ensure proper evaluation. She noted evaluation in the museum is heavily based on judgment. She concluded a diverse informed group outside of the museum was a nice protection feature. She mentioned only having one teleconference per year, whereby the description materials could be sent out prior to the meeting. Number 579 MR. KATO related to the value of the MCAC as insurance; was it worth the amount they apply towards it. He likened the situation to their premium paid through risk management; was it worth the cost for the protection. He noted current staff has not had a problem with collusion. Number 596 CHAIRMAN VEZEY called for a recess at 9:25 a.m. The meeting resumed at 9:32 a.m. Members present were REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, OLBERG and G. DAVIS. CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Anchorage teleconference site. Number 603 JAN DEYOUNG, ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY, addressed Section 10 of HB 531. She began railroad employees are "strike eligible," whereby if they impasse in negotiations they must seek a mediator to work with them and the Railroad Corporation to reach an agreement. If using a mediator fails, the employees are entitled to take a vote, then they may strike. The Railroad Corporation can enjoin the strike through the court if it threatens or interferes with public safety and welfare. Presently, if the court enjoins the strike, it can order the parties to binding interest arbitration. An arbitrator would then review both sides and issue a contract stating the terms and conditions of employment. MS. DEYOUNG explained present statute requires that the person who served as the mediator pre-strike, later serve as the interest arbitrator. She emphasized the mediators are well educated, trained, and free as they are federally provided; however, the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) Charter will not allow mediators to serve as interest arbitrators. Therefore, there is the possibility that in the future, FMCS may refuse to refer a mediator to assist in an impasse pre-strike. MS. DEYOUNG stated if a mediator was not federally furnished, the Railroad Corporation would have to seek other mediation services. This would cost them money, as well as the Labor Relations Agency (LRA). She noted the LRA additional cost would be from having to set up a mediator referral service. HB 531 seeks to remove the requirement that the person who serves as a mediator, also must serve as the interest arbitrator. (REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and B. DAVIS returned at 9:35 a.m.) CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out that HB 531 is trying to comply with federal regulations. He stated a mediator should not serve as an interest arbitrator because it is contrary to the purpose of mediation. Number 652 STEVE SORENSON, MUSEUM COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, commented on HB 531. He noted the MCAC is composed of members with expertise in archeology, anthropology, ethnology, and art. MCAC acts as a balance with the staff acquisition committee. He stated in his four years with the MCAC, they have turned down objects for acquisition because the purchase price was too high for the value received, the object did not fit in the collection, or the object was not of sufficient quality. He noted without the MCAC, those objects submitted for approval but turned down, might have been acquired by the museum. (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 9:38 a.m.) MR. SORENSON commented deaccessioning had not been very important in the past; however, with the National Repatriation Act recently passed by the federal government it would now be more readily used. Museums will now be involved in repatriating the object requests of various Native interests which they believe they have ownership or cultural interest in. Those deaccessions would also go before the MCAC. He mentioned the Alaska State Museum, in order to comply with the repatriation law, has devised that the artifact or object would remain in the possession of the museum, but the ownership would be transferred to the Native entity. He noted the museum would be the most likely to be able to preserve the artifacts or objects. MR. SORENSON questioned the cost figures given to the committee for the MCAC. TAPE 94-40, SIDE A Number 000 MR. SORENSON explained there is no cost for the review materials needed by the committee, other than the cost of duplication. He stated additional material is not developed unless the MCAC requests for additional research to be done. This is not often; however, it happens when the staff acquisition committee has not done the proper background work they should have. Most meetings are now done by teleconference. He felt the mandatory requirement that the MCAC meet in person should be removed. Sending out materials in advance and teleconferencing still facilitates good discussions and interaction. He noted although gifts undergo the same process, most are accepted. Some gifts are not accepted because they do not meet the criteria. Cost could be reduced by requiring meetings by teleconference. MCAC meets once every two months by teleconference. MCAC services are requested when offer deadlines to the museum must be met. He believed the process was efficient and cost saving. Because of the protection and additional expertise provided by the MCAC, he stated, it should not be eliminated. CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified MCAC stood for the Museum Collection Advisory Committee. He returned to Juneau for testimony. Number 089 BEA SHEPARD, MEMBER, BOARD OF MUSEUMS ALASKA, FRIENDS OF THE ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, opposed the elimination of the MCAC. She felt the MCAC was invaluable. She believed the costs presented to the committee were inaccurate and exaggerated. MCAC is a form of perfection not only for the museum, but also for the personnel. An advisory committee is knowledgeable about the needs and qualities of a collection, therefore when it makes the decisions it protects the members of the staff. MS. SHEPARD inquired how much it cost the staff to prepare for the committee. With HB 531 the staff would go through the same process internally, therefore she could not see how presenting the information to the MCAC was much more expensive. Research work is already being done by the museum. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred back to MR. SORENSON's testimony and asked if MS. SHEPARD felt it would be appropriate to eliminate the requirement for two face to face meetings every year. Number 154 MS. SHEPARD answered at least one meeting was valuable, but the rest could be done by teleconference. Number 159 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many members were on the MCAC and how often they met. Number 160 MS. SHEPARD replied five usually, but there are currently two vacancies. Nominees have been made and they are going to presently meet in Juneau. Number 168 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the membership comes from around the state. He asked if the meetings were generally in Juneau. Number 169 MS. SHEPARD answered yes, but the meetings are held in other areas as well as Juneau. Teleconferencing is common. Number 172 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he was trying to determine the cost of the meetings. Three to five members meet twice a year around the state. Actual cost versus the benefit. Number 180 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified MS. SHEPARD did not serve on the MCAC. MS. SHEPARD replied no, she was on the Board of Museums Alaska, an organization of all the museums in the state of Alaska. Number 187 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified the Board of Museums Alaska supports the continuation of the MCAC. MS. SHEPARD affirmed REPRESENTATIVE ULMER. Number 195 KENNETH DEROUX, PREVIOUS MUSEUM CURATOR, EX-MEMBER MUSEUM COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, commented on HB 531. As a museum staff member he found the MCAC to be frustrating, whereby it often involved unnecessary work with regard to overseeing acquisitions of $1000. He stated the $1,000 figure should be higher to reduce the paperwork. MR. DEROUX commented as a member of the MCAC, he had similar feelings. He did, however, find the value of the MCAC as it served the museum like a board of directors. The MCAC provides oversight to the museum staff members in establishing policies and procedures. He stated he has mixed feelings about HB 531 because there is a considerable amount of staff time spent on MCAC matters which could be better spent otherwise. MR. DEROUX focused on HB 531 where it allows deaccessioning of acquired items to be solely in the hands of the commissioner and director of the department. He stated this could be going in the wrong direction. He noted an example of directors who misuse their authority to gain money through deaccessions. With HB 531 the potential exists. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she was considering proposing an amendment which would increase the minimum purchase approval requirement to possibly $5,000 and waive the requirement for face to face meetings. She asked his opinion. MR. DEROUX stated he would be in favor of REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's suggestions. He reminded the committee that they were not dealing with a lot of money. With a small acquisitions budget and little travel, he explained it sometimes was not worth the time spent. Progress would be made with a $5,000. The oversight committee is important; however, face to face meetings are not necessary. Number 272 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if MR. DEROUX was in a legislative position, would he propose the elimination or the continuation of the MCAC. MR. DEROUX answered he would not propose the elimination without something to take its place. An administrative hierarchy would not work. He gave the staff credit for their expertise; however, they do not have enough power to be influential. In-house rules and regulations can be changed easily. Number 299 MR. SMITH clarified the point MR. DEROUX made on the oversight of deaccessioning. He had stated concerns about the oversight of deaccessioning an object from the collection ending up with the commissioner of Education. MR. SMITH noted elsewhere in law, the commissioner of Administration has oversight for all deaccessioning of materials. Therefore, even if the commissioner of Education decided something should be deaccessioned, it would then have to go to the commissioner of Administration for a final decision. Oversight exists in a different part of the law. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he would like to hold HB 531 in committee. Number 316 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he did have an amendment to HB 531 if the chair would like to entertain it. Amend AS 23.30.005 to read: (a) The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board consists of a southern panel of three members sitting for the first judicial district, a northern panel of three members sitting for the second and fourth judicial district, three [TWO] southcentral panels of three members each sitting for the third judicial district, and one panel of three members that may sit in any judicial district. Each panel must include the commissioner, a representative of industry, and a representative of labor. The latter two members of each panel shall be appointed by the Governor and are subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained the southcentral panels would be expanded to three. There would be no cost associated with the amendment. He stated presently, there is a delay in issuing Board D and Os, which are decisions and orders, and the attorneys of their clients are frustrated by this. The possibility exists that the state might soon be involved in a class action suit. In 1993, there were 350 decisions and orders issued, of which 44 were beyond the statutory 30- day limit. Another panel would be available to select from without any fiscal impact. Number 342 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if the majority of the delayed cases were in the southcentral region. Number 347 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied he was not sure, but he believed most of the backlog was in the southcentral region because a majority of the decisions and orders were issued from there. Number 351 MS. LEAF answered the Department of Labor feels that if another panel was added in southcentral, it would alleviate a substantial amount of the delay. The majority of the cases come out of that region. Number 362 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt amendment #1. Number 366 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the roll. IN FAVOR: REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, ULMER, B. DAVIS, G. DAVIS, SANDERS, OLBERG. MOTION PASSED CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated a committee substitute would be worked on and it would be brought back up in a week. Number 369 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated for purposes of preparing the committee substitute, she would like to see the changes they had been discussing regarding the MCAC. She questioned whether it might be better to vote now and roll the amendment into the committee substitute, or if limited CS should be prepared. It would save the committee a step if the vote was taken now and the CS could include it. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the conceptual amendment would be to change the $1,000 requirement to $5,000 and it would remove the requirement that the MCAC meet face to face. Number 379 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the amendment would have to do more because if the board is dissolved the amendment is redundant. Number 382 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER explained the portions of HB 531 which remove the MCAC would be removed. It would be better to roll it into the CS they want prepared now, rather than have to prepare another CS if HB 531 passed. Number 390 CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented the amendment was not as simple as REPRESENTATIVE ULMER believed it was. He wanted to wait until the CS was before the committee in writing. Number 394 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER pointed out if the changes are done as an amendment versus a proposed CS, it will be more complicated because it will required yet another CS to be prepared. Number 399 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS agreed with REPRESENTATIVE ULMER. A lot of sections would be deleted from HB 531, therefore it would be much smaller. Only a few sections would be included which relate to museums. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he wanted to see the proposal in writing. A committee substitute could be reviewed next Thursday. Number 408 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired if someone from the museum could be recalled to comment on the conceptual amendment which would increase the purchase review amount to $5,000. MR. SMITH stated $5,000 would be acceptable. He said, anymore one does not purchase too many things under $5,000. Major purchases are always more than $5,000. Number 420 CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the change would not make a difference. MR. SMITH replied they feel they do have adequate controls to properly handle museum acquisitions and deaccessioning without a committee. He was in favor of both amendments. Not meeting face to face would reduce cost. Number 431 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what the museum's average acquisition cost is. Number 432 MR. SMITH answered an average is difficult to establish. One purchase of two pieces this year is about $25,000. Other years, there may be a number of pieces bought in the $2,000-4,000 range. Purchases vary from year to year because of what is on the market and what the museum needs. Number 438 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he understood there was not very much available in real collectibles under $5,000. Number 440 MR. SMITH agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY that for special things they would like to get his statement was true. He stated there are a number of items of historical importance or smaller ethnographic pieces that are under $5,000. Nice pieces are also received as gifts. HB 531 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|