Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2002 08:05 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 517 - SURPLUS/OBSOLETE STATE PROPERTY Number 2043 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 517, "An Act relating to the disposition of surplus and obsolete state property." [He actually announced HB 493 but took up HB 517].] Number 2060 BILL LAWRENCE, Staff to Representative Carl Morgan, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 517 on behalf of the House Community & Regional Affairs Committee, sponsor, which Representative Morgan co-chairs. He explained that HB 517 fixes a problem dealing with surplus property. Specifically, it was written to address surplus fax machines. Recently a situation occurred when the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee and the House Resources Standing Committee received faxes from an advocacy group on a bill before them at the time. Unfortunately, the faxes were identified as coming from a state agency. MR. LAWRENCE indicated that this caused quite a stir and a fair amount of investigative work on the part of the state agency. It was finally determined that neither the state agency nor any state employee was involved in this. The state agency had sent the machine to state surplus sometime before, but the electronic signature on top of the fax copies had not been removed. MR. LAWRENCE informed the committee that committee staff had discussions with staff from Legislative Legal and Research Services and determined it was in the best interest of the state to ensure these fax headers were removed before they were sent to surplus. He had checked with between 15 and 20 procurement officers in state agencies and found out that none of them had a policy to remove the fax header before the machine was "surplused." They all agreed it was a good idea. MR. LAWRENCE noted three good reasons for removing the fax headers. The first reason protects the state. State departments and/or employees will not get blamed for faxes they didn't send. The second reason helps prevent fraud. It should prevent a party from intentionally faxing material identified as being from the State of Alaska. Number 2211 MR. LAWRENCE pointed out that the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act specifically requires: It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such message clearly contains, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it's sent and an identification of the business, or other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. MR. LAWRENCE said the third reason protects the buyer of surplus property. It prevents a buyer from inadvertently violating a federal law - at least from the aspect of the state identifier's removal. Somebody could go back in and put a false identifier on it, but that is a federal violation. He noted that when most equipment is surplused, the manuals are not included, so it may be difficult for a private individual or organization to remove the fax header. Number 2320 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she thought there should be a requirement for the manuals to be included with surplused equipment. MR. LAWRENCE agreed that that was reasonable. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the penalty would be if this wasn't done. MR. LAWRENCE answered that wasn't addressed. Number 2493 CHRISTINE PARCE, Director, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, came forward to testify and answer questions. She expressed support for taking the electronic documents out before the property is surplused. There is an administrative procedure for doing that, but she acknowledged it sometimes gets missed. Because of the recent incident, that process is being reemphasized to the departments. MS. PARCE told the members that all the documentation is removed from the C [hard] drive of some equipment. The tags are kept on the pieces of equipment, so surplus can identify them. She explained that the tag tracks from when the equipment was first purchased to its disposal. When a citizen buys the property and someone reports to the department that someone has a piece of equipment at home, the department can track that sticker and know that the person bought it at surplus. She said that the department would not support removing the sticker tag in the department before the piece of equipment gets sent to surplus. Number 2630 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked about the manuals with the equipment. MS. PARCE said the trouble with manuals for computers and fax machines is the equipment may come with a manual, but the manual is rarely used. Most departments have information technology [IT] groups that manage the computers, servers, and networks; there aren't stand-alone computers as such. The applications are installed on the servers and accessed that way. It's not like at home where someone would have the manual right there to figure out how to use the system. She explained that some of the manuals cost about $65 each, so manuals aren't purchased with everything. There is a server manual and then the IT people are trained. The manuals don't stay with the equipment, and she doesn't know how they would be gathered together to send out. The people buying the used equipment need to buy the manual to learn how to use it, she commented. Number 2730 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked for clarification on the permanent and temporary identifying marks referred to on the fiscal note. MS. PARCE replied that it would be expensive for the state to remove those tags. If they were removed at a department's property office before it comes to surplus, some kind of temporary tag would have to be put on it for surplus to know where it came from for the control records. The permanent tag would have to be removed and recorded, and then a temporary tag would be affixed and recorded, so when surplus got it, it would know what it was and where it came from. If the Department of Administration had to remove the permanent stickers and replace them with temporary stickers, it would have to hire staff because there is barely enough staff now to do what needs to be done. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Parce about a solution to the manual issue. Number 2910 MS. PARCE commented that for the department to provide a manual would be labor-intensive. TAPE 02-44, SIDE B Number 2960 MS. PARCE noted that most people who buy the equipment know how to use it. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if legislation was needed to make the department remove the state identifying information. MS. PARCE answered no. There are administrative procedures in place for property control. Those procedures are disseminated from the Division of General Services through the department property officers, and it is their responsibility to remove every internal document or identifier that says it's coming from the state. This incident that occurred recently suggested that there was a failure in that procedure. She has instructed her property manager in Anchorage to remind property officers of their responsibility to do this. That notice will be sent out about every 30 days. Number 2835 MR. LAWRENCE reiterated that he called between 15 and 20 property officers and was told that the state did not have, and never had, a written policy on the removal of the fax header. MR. LAWRENCE pointed out that AS 39.25.150 speaks to the penalty under: "(15) the establishment of disciplinary measures, which may include disciplinary suspension without pay". CHAIR COGHILL made a motion to adopt the following as Amendment 1: Page 1, lines 9-10, delete all material. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2665 NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, came forward to testify. She referred to Amendment 1 and recommended that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities be taken out of the first paragraph of the bill because the remaining part doesn't relate to the state equipment fleet. Number 2613 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the following as Amendment 2: Page 1, line 6, following "section", delete "or before the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities disposes of equipment from the state equipment fleet under AS 36.30.005(b), the state agency or the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities". There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 2544 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 517, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 517(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|