Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/07/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB311 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 311- REPORTS TO APOC
8:06:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 311, "An Act relating to certain information filed with
the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and providing for an
effective date."
8:07:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, presenting
HB 311 on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor,
stressed the importance of transparency and disclosure to the
public. He said the legislature makes detailed and specific
statutory policies regarding who has to disclose, what has to be
disclosed, and when and how disclosures must be made, and it
charges the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to keep
track. He said HB 311 is the outcome of a reevaluation of
established policies.
8:09:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reviewed that in 2007, the legislature
gave a policy directive to APOC that all state office filings
were to be submitted electronically. The exception made that
still exists today is that local election candidates still have
to file disclosures, but do not have to do so electronically.
He said historically APOC offered a proprietary electronic
filing system (ELFS) and accepted Excel spreadsheets that the
commission then uploaded to the its system and made available to
the public. He said ELFS became "cranky and difficult for
legislators" and was discontinued a couple years ago. In the
interim, the commission has accepted filing on spreadsheet and,
through the past campaign, filing via paper.
8:11:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN clarified that which must be reported are campaign
expenditures and campaign contributions received.
8:12:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said for the past couple years, APOC has
been working on a new proprietary online system. He said he and
many others received notice on 12/29/11 - just days before the
first ferry departed for Juneau for session - that everyone
involved in the current campaign had to retroactively adopt the
new system for reports due 2/15/12, and he imparted that many
legislators he spoke to upon arriving in Juneau indicated that
they were not even aware that the filing requirement had
changed. Representative Hawker offered his understanding that
the new system requires users to manually enter every
transaction legislators have had over the course of the past
summer directly onto a state mainframe computer, without any
record being kept on legislators' own personal computers for
review, editing, or database management. He said that is a
policy call in how APOC has established the new electronic
system, but it is a departure from the past when the commission
allowed legislators to manage their own data and ensure its
accuracy before it was recorded onto a state computer. He noted
that the commission has subsequently come up with an
import/export feature for that system, but he said he is
currently in the middle of session and, therefore, not legally
able to engage in campaign activity outside of reporting. He
opined that APOC's plan is too late to be instigated for the
current campaign cycle.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that during legislative
session, legislators are allowed to make campaign expenditures,
but not allowed to take campaign contributions,.
8:14:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said while greatly respecting the efforts
of APOC in coming up with a new, functional electronic system,
legislators began to question whether APOC was carrying out
legislative policy the way in which it was intended or was
becoming prescriptive in its efforts. He said all the
legislators he spoke with think APOC is not implementing the
legislature's disclosure policies in the intended manner.
Representative Hawker emphasized the importance of accommodating
reasonable latitude by which individuals with varying degrees of
skills and experience are able to comply with campaign
disclosure policy.
8:16:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the proposed bill would require APOC
to accept campaign finance reports in the following three
formats: a paper format designed by APOC; a user-friendly
electronic system, which would encourage others to switch to
electronic filing; and spreadsheets or other databases, for
which APOC could set the guidelines to facilitate disclosure.
As under existing statute, APOC has 2 working days from the time
it receives a paper filing to scan it and make it available to
the public on line. Representative Hawker said the language in
the bill [on page 2, line 7], says 10 days, and he explained
that is a mistake for which an amendment is necessary.
8:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the proposed legislation would
accelerate the deadline for APOC to submit a summary of
electronic reports from 30 days after an election to 30 days
after the report has been filed. The bill would further provide
a safe harbor so that those who have not complied with the
mandate for the new system during the last deadline would not
have violated the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER relayed his recent campaign disclosure
activity. In response to Chair Lynn, he confirmed that the
proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that his recent
filing method is accepted by APOC, and he explained he is
sharing this information as a possible conflict of interest.
8:22:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question, confirmed that
under HB 311, no changes would be made regarding what must be
reported, and the only change that would be made regarding the
requirements of APOC to make the information available to the
public would be acceleration of the summer reporting for
electronic filing.
8:23:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, on
behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor, said she
supports HB 311 because she believes in transparency and because
without the bill she thinks there will be "a big problem" in
eight days when the reports are due. She remarked that APOC has
a thankless job. She opined that it was the legislature that
caused the current problem when, five years ago, it decided it
wanted electronic filing. However, after consideration and
informal polling, she said she is convinced that many
legislators are not yet in a position to be able to use the new
system properly. She said at this point in time, she would
choose to still allow paper filing, which would put the burden
on APOC to accept that form of filing and get it transferred to
a form accessible via computer.
8:25:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered an example of a problem that occurred when he
filed for office. He said he filed by paper in Anchorage, then,
in response to the upcoming electronic filing requirement, went
to the commission's office in Juneau to file electronically and
was told he had not previously filed. He said he had the
paperwork in his hands at that time to prove that was not true.
8:26:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related that because she has a computer-
savvy bookkeeper, she does not anticipate having a problem
filing electronically; therefore, she said she currently does
not have a conflict of interest with HB 311. She reiterated
that it was the legislature that directed APOC, through statute,
to create the electronic filing system. She said it is now up
to the legislature to figure out how to go forward from here.
8:27:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he supports HB 311 and agrees with
the idea of allowing time to get the bugs worked out of the
system. He offered his understanding that several legislators
do not have computer access in their session residences, which
makes it difficult to get caught up on filing information.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that although legislators have access to
computers in their offices, they are not allowed to use state-
supplied computers to conduct campaign business.
8:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he agrees with the direction of the
proposed legislation, but is looking for clarification on points
within it.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Representative Seaton,
confirmed that currently and under HB 311, APOC is and would be
required to accept paper filing and scan it into the system.
8:30:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to Representative Seaton,
said HB 311 was crafted with the intent to not interfere with
APOC policies, procedures, and determinations related to
information submitted; the proposed bill would change only the
methodology of reporting. He said it would be a policy call for
the committee whether to provide further statutory guidance on
the acceptance of written reports, spreadsheets, or
electronically submitted data.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Representative Seaton,
offered her understanding that [matters pertaining to the
posting date of reports] are within the regulatory authority of
APOC; however, she deferred to APOC for confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he absolutely believes that "that is
the sort of thing that is best managed through regulatory
activity."
8:32:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN compared the timing of sending in a report
electronically versus through the mail.
8:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question from
Representative Seaton, said language [on page 1, line 13,
through page 2, line 1] would require in statute that the
spreadsheets or data files submitted to APOC conform to the
standard of the commission. He added that it is not intended
that APOC would require any spreadsheets or data files that are
not readily available to the public.
8:37:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports and appreciates the
proposed legislation, because he fills out his reports himself
and submits them on paper. He directed attention to page 2,
line 25, regarding retroactivity. He noted that under HB 311,
Sections 1 and 2 would be retroactive, and he questioned whether
Section 3 - the transition section - on page 2, lines 15-22,
should also be retroactive. He said Section 3 would protect
people who may have been filing in good faith under the current
system from being subject to a civil penalty.
8:39:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the retroactivity dates were
structured by Legislative Legal and Research Services, but said
he sees no reason not to accept an amendment to make Section 3
retroactive.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned an unlabeled amendment, and
asked whether it would impact the current fiscal note from APOC.
8:41:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER told Representative Gruenberg that the day
before, he received a fiscal note from APOC requesting one
additional employee for an annual estimated cost of $62,800.
Based on his prior experience as co-chair of the House Finance
Committee in charge of the operating budget, he said he is
having difficulty accepting the need for increased cost for
purposes of HB 311. He said he is cognizant that there is a
cyclical increase in the need for extra staff during election
years. He recommended that HB 311 be forwarded without a fiscal
note, because he said he believes it would be more appropriate
for APOC to discuss its aggregate needs for this election cycle
and the coming fiscal budget before the House and Senate Finance
Committees.
8:44:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports HB 311. He stated, "I
believe you said ... that this could become a bar impediment to
people ... in the state of Alaska who may not have computers,
and this may be an impediment to run for office." He opined
that that is a significant element, and ventured that it could
become a legal question. He indicated that the issue increases
his support of the proposed legislation.
8:45:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she thinks APOC's current
regulations would cover a situation in which someone was without
a computer. She said the problem is more about bandwidth and
whether people are able to upload the new program.
8:45:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said her bookkeeper keeps abreast of
technology, but if she had to [figure out the new filing
requirements] herself, it would be hard. She commented on the
difficulty of meeting reporting requirements during session.
She said she supports the bill.
8:46:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated that there would be no conflict of interest by
anyone on the committee when the time came to move the bill out
of committee.
8:46:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said he would advise the committee to
formally adopt the zero fiscal note in the committee packet.
8:47:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like to hear from APOC
whether the reason it would need to hire a person is because
they released a person last year.
8:48:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that there are some potential
post office closures across the state, so candidates across the
state may not have a way to mail in their reports, and if they
do not have access to computers, they may have to travel down
river to a bigger community to complete submittal of their
reports.
8:49:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she knows that APOC has been
willing to work with candidates in similar circumstances in the
past. She said the bill is not just about incumbents, but also
affects candidates. She said she has not had a chance to ask
APOC for the reason behind its fiscal note, and she indicated
that she would like the bill to move on the House Finance
Committee, where she would work to "be sure that we figure that
out."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER clarified for the record that his
recommendation is that the committee pass the bill with the zero
fiscal note, and that APOC bring forward its needs and
considerations for the coming fiscal year in its regular budget
request for 2013.
8:51:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the APOC fiscal note analysis
read, "This bill may require revision of newly enacted
regulations." He asked for clarification. He then asked if the
bill would affect municipal candidates, as well as state
candidates.
8:52:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that the regulatory activity
undertaken by all agencies is an ongoing process, and "the
capability to manage that regulatory activity is inherent in
their baseline budgets." He noted that the request in the
fiscal note analysis was for a position that would "engage in
the activities required by this bill; namely scanning, manual
data input, and direct customer service." Regarding municipal
candidates, he said current statute excludes candidates from the
office of borough, mayor, and municipal, assembly councils from
electronic reporting. He said the rewriting of that statute, as
reflected in Section 1 of HB 311 "grandfathers, for any
candidate, the ability to file on paper or a spreadsheet,
encompasses those elections, and makes ... no change in how
those elections and those candidates are administered ... for
the disclosure requirements currently." He added, "It gives
state office candidates essentially the same choices that local
candidates have under current statutes."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER emphasized that he does not see the
proposed legislation as a retrograde motion; the manner in which
people have filed in the past is the manner in which they will
most likely file for the upcoming deadline. He opined that from
the standpoint of affecting the operations of the agency, HB 311
is a benign proposal.
8:55:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he had just received a note from
Mark Higgins, staff to the House Rules Standing Committee, that
explains that because Section 4 of the bill lists Sections 1 and
2 - "triggering sections" - it is probably not necessary to
include Section 3. For that reason, he said he would not offer
an amendment to include Section 3.
8:56:24 AM
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), prefaced his remarks by stating that the
commission understands and respects the legislature's need and
ability to make changes [to statutes] as it sees fit. He said
the commission is charged with enforcing and administering
statutes to the best of its ability. He stated that HB 311 will
make access to public documents more difficult and will make
APOC an inefficient organization.
MR. DAUPHINAIS said when he began his role as executive
director, on February 22, 2011, the message he received from
legislators was that getting the [reporting] system working was
the priority, and he said APOC spent the last year making that
happen. He said the public is dissatisfied with the current
system of reporting, because the current method of scanning does
not allow the public to compare reports side by side. He said
APOC currently uses FoxPro database, which is an old, unstable
database. The impetus behind the electronic system is to have a
system where the data is readily available and where there is
greater security.
9:00:13 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS said as currently written, components of HB 311
would be extended to municipal filers. He said a three-year
average shows there are 145 municipality candidates that have to
file multiple reports annually. He indicated there are a great
number of municipalities that will change between filing
electronically and not filing electronically. Under HB 311,
municipalities under 15,000 will be allowed to file by paper.
He said statistical data from national campaign oversight
organizations has shown that when electronic filing is made
optional, only 15 percent of filers use that system. He noted
that that is just statistical data from the state of Alaska. He
said reports are amended, and when reports are filed on paper,
those amendments all have to be done manually, which takes
between 10 minutes to 5-6 hours. He offered further details.
Mr. Dauphinais said that between July 1 and December 31 of 2011,
APOC spent over 1,100 hours on data input alone.
MR. DAUPHINAIS talked about the time that APOC spends assisting
the public, dealing with complaints, and keeping up with
statutory requirements. He said APOC wants to complete more
audits, but was only able to spend 330 hours conducting audits
in the last six months. He indicated that under HB 311, the
number of those filing by paper may increase, which would add to
the workload of the commission and make it inefficient. He
offered his understanding that APOC has to have reports in its
possession by the filing deadline, but he said he would like to
check statute to be certain. Mr. Dauphinais relayed that
reports sent electronically sometimes have to be transcribed,
and he said he cannot guarantee no mistakes will be made in the
process.
9:05:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
accepts tax return forms that have been post marked by the
deadline.
MR. DAUPHINAIS reiterated that he needs to look up statute
regarding the deadline for reports.
9:06:21 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS offered his understanding that the proposed
legislation would not allow filing via [the State of Alaska's on
line system called,] "myAlaska." He directed attention to
language on page 1, line 11, which states that the commission
shall accept electronically submitted information that is
"entered onto a version of the form accessed on the Internet
website of the commission", and he said myAlaska is not the
Internet web site of the commission. He opined that if APOC has
to create a security system similar to myAlaska, based on APOC's
website, it would be time consuming, expensive, and inefficient.
In response to Chair Lynn, he offered further details.
9:11:17 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS, in response to Representative Keller, said there
are many states, including Massachusetts, that require
electronic filing, and many others that will require electronic
filing in the next two to three years, and he offered to procure
a list for the committee.
CHAIR LYNN commented that the geography of Alaska is different
from that of any other state.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that he was wondering if Alaska
is on the leading edge of this issue.
9:13:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to Mr. Dauphinais'
previously stated concern regarding the language on page 1, line
11. He asked him if it would help to change the language from
"the Internet website of the commission" to "the Internet as
designated by the commission".
MR. DAUPHINAIS answered yes.
9:14:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled Mr. Dauphinais had said that
currently municipal candidates in communities with populations
over 15,000 are required to file electronically, and the
proposed legislation would be a step backward for those
communities.
MR. DAUPHINAIS confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to know if that is
the sponsor's intent.
9:15:49 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS shared that he was confused by the proposed
regulation after having been given the directive by the
legislature last year to go forward with an electronic filing
system. He said he understands that "APOC is the organization
that everybody loves to hate," but said APOC wants to "do things
right and conform to the law."
CHAIR LYNN interjected that he thinks those who make reports to
APOC want to do things right.
MR. DAUPHINAIS said many of the complaints APOC addresses stem
from ignorance, and the electronic filing that APOC envisioned
would allow the commission to devote more time to training,
outreach, and auditing.
9:17:20 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS directed attention to APOC's fiscal note, dated
2/3/12 [included in the committee packet]. He said the increase
in reports that APOC would have to do if HB 311 passes was the
impetus for the fiscal note. He noted that not reflected in the
fiscal note is the cost to replace the FoxPro database, which he
reiterated works at present but is not going to be supported
much longer.
9:18:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the filing deadline for
financial disclosures, cited 2AAC 50.785(c), which read as
follows:
(c) If a filer files a disclosure statement by hand
delivery or facsimile, the date of filing is the date
on which an office of the commission receives the
statement. If the filer files a disclosure statement
by mail, the date of filing is the date of the
postmark. If a disclosure statement filed by mail has
a postmark on which the date is missing or illegible,
the date of the postmark is rebuttably presumed to be
10 calendar days before the date on which the
disclosure statement is received. (Eff. 7/20/95,
Register 135)
MR. DAUPHINAIS said he would like to review that before giving a
definitive answer.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he disagrees with Mr. Dauphinais'
previous statement that HB 311 may prohibit use of myAlaska. He
returned attention to the language on page 1, lines 11-12 [text
provided previously], and he emphasized the word "accessed". He
indicated that the top line of APOC's web site provides a link
to access electronic filing of APOC documents.
9:21:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posited that "we" have a common goal.
She said the agency is doing a good job trying to get ahead, but
without delaying the impending APOC filing requirement, there
will be "a real pile-up." She opined that using the phrase "the
form accessed" would give APOC great latitude. She concluded,
"It was never our intent to do away with the work that they've
done."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER concurred. He emphasized that he wants
all candidates to know that the single point of information for
compliance filing is APOC's web site. He said the mission is to
make the filing system work for both the candidates and the
public. He stated that the bill would codify current practice,
and he stated his belief that the bill would not be a retrograde
motion. He clarified that there has been a mandate for
electronic filing, and those who file on paper have been able to
do so because of an exception allowed in statute. He said he
encourages APOC to continue to implement electronic systems that
are sufficiently effective, attractive, and user-friendly, so
that an increasing number of candidates choose to file
electronically.
9:25:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered his understanding that the
proposed legislation does allow the commission to use myAlaska,
because of the language beginning on page 1, line 13, through
page 2, line 1, which read as follows:
(2) submitted to the commission in the
form of an electronic spreadsheet or data file that
contains field names and data types that conform to a
standard defined by the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN indicated that if APOC wants people to
use myAlaska, then the commission would just need to define that
as a standard.
9:26:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that under HB
311, municipalities with populations above 15,000 could file by
paper. He asked whether that is a change or whether because of
"waiver ability" it is not considered a change.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that current statute requires
candidates for state and municipal offices to file
electronically, and under HB 311, state office candidates and
candidates in municipalities larger than 15,000 would be able to
file a paper report without having to avail themselves of the
other statutory provisions that allow APOC to make exceptions to
[the requirement to] report electronically. He stated, "We are
revisiting the standard and, through this legislation, saying
that electronic filing is the desired outcome, but we respect
the relative skills, abilities, and circumstances of potential
candidates who may not be able to avail themselves of electronic
filing or may not choose to."
9:29:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is in favor of bill, but expressed
concern that it will result in a lot more paper filing.
9:30:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that
"everyone" was under the old system, which allowed electronic
and paper filing, and APOC came up with a new system, which is
what HB 311 would address. She said the one point on which she
is not clear is whether or not the municipalities are "in the
same place" that legislators are in, but said if they are, she
questions that anybody would "move backward."
9:31:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER concurred. He said, "I think the
mandatory electronic filing has disenfranchised a certain cohort
of the state's population that I think we have to be very
careful to protect." He emphasized the importance of not
discouraging anyone in Alaska from running for public office.
9:33:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the wording of a
sentence on page 2, line 9, which read as follows:
Each summary must [SHALL] use uniform categories of
reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that under HB 311, the word
"shall" would be changed to "must". He said "must" is
mandatory, whereas "shall" is directory. He said he thinks
"shall" should be changed to "must" on page 1, line 6.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER confirmed that the intent of the sponsor
was that the commission must accept "any information required
under this chapter".
9:36:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Representative Keller,
said the directive from the legislature to APOC to create an
electronic filing system is in statute. She reiterated that the
goal has not changed, but the timing is problematic.
9:38:45 AM
MR. DAUPHINAIS, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said
the rule regarding municipalities with a population over 15,000
was in place before he took his current position with APOC a
year ago.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if APOC has received much
feedback in the past from municipalities with populations over
15,000 that the electronic filing process is too difficult.
MR. DAUPHINAIS answered that he is not aware of any, but said he
would canvas staff to find out if they have received any such
comments in the past.
9:41:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:42:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 7, following "within"
Delete "10"
Insert "two working"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:42:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
to change "shall" to "must", on page 1, line 6. He explained
that he would like to leave it up to Legislative Legal and
Research Services to determine if the change is necessary.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the next committee of referral could
ask Legislative Legal and Research Services if the change is
necessary and act accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that if HB 311 moves out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee without a fiscal note,
then the next committee of referral would be the House Rules
Standing Committee; however, if a fiscal note is attached, the
bill would have to be heard by the House Finance Committee. He
stated that if the committee researches the question brought by
Representative Gruenberg and determines that the language needs
to be changed, then he would ensure that the issue is heard by
the House Rules Standing Committee.
9:44:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2.
9:44:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Representative
Gruenberg, said both municipalities and the legislature were "in
the same boat," and then municipalities with less than 15,000
were exempted. She said she would continue to work to improve
the bill.
9:46:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to attach the zero fiscal note
prepared by the House State Affairs Standing Committee, with the
understanding that APOC would use the normal budgetary process
to explain any budgetary needs.
9:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected to make a comment. She
cautioned the committee to carefully consider the effects of the
bill on municipalities. She said she thinks it makes sense to
allow municipalities with populations under 15,000 to file by
paper. She talked about the difficulty of changing gears mid-
election cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, the motion to attach the zero fiscal note
prepared by the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
accepted.
9:49:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented on the rapid nature of the bill
hearing and the possible effect of allowing everyone to choose
between paper and electronic filing. He stated, "I think that
this is a drastic change in direction from where we have been
going in trying to make our system of reporting quick and
available to the public." He recommended consideration be given
to change the bill so that there still is a presumption of
electronic filing with a possible variance for paper filing.
9:52:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER posited that the common goal is to have a
user-friendly method of clear reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 311, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 311(STA) was
reported out of committee.
9:54:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she thinks there is a fear of the
process, but it is not that difficult. She offered examples.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 07 HB 190 Legal Memo Lisa Kirsch 3-18-11.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 08 2012 Sponsor Substitute HB 190 Version X.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 08a 2012 HB 190 Version Change Summary.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 09 2012 HB 190 CS SS Version 27-LS0564R.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 10 2012 HB 190 Sectional Analysis CS Version 27-LS0564R.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 11 2012 HB 190 PFD 2011 Extended Absence Questionnaire.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 12 2012 HB 190 Residency and Allowable Absences15 AAC 23 .pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 13 2012 HB 190 PFD Allowable Absences.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 14 2012 HB190SS-DOR-PFD-02-02-12.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 01 HB 311.B.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 311 |
| 02 HB 311 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 311 |
| 03 HB 311 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 311 |
| 04 HB311-DOA-APOC-2-3-12.pdf |
HSTA 2/7/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 311 |