Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1998 09:27 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 358
"An Act relating to the disclosure of certain
personnel records that include information about the
use of public resources."
Senator Pearce explained that SB 358 was the result of
findings from a legislative audit made on the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation in the Department of Education
(DOE). She added that the audit had recently been released
at a Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT, informed the committee that during course of the DOE
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation audit, the
legislative auditors were asked to review various
allegations. The conclusions of the audit were contained in
the recently released report. However, certain information
was found that could not be disclosed because it was
considered private under the Personnel Act. The items that
could not be discussed in public had to do with state
financial transactions. Legislative Audit believed that
there should not be prohibitions on how state money was
spent; SB 358 would amend the personnel actions and would
allow public disclosure of the use and the amount of state
funds, for whatever purpose.
MIKE MCMULLEN, PERSONNEL MANAGER, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, testified that the position
of the Department of Administration (DOA) was that the bill
would not fix the perceived problem in the right way. He
stated that trying to fix the personnel record section in
statute to deal with the issue would be misplaced since the
financial documents were not personnel records. He did not
know the solution but was willing to work with the Division
of Finance to find one. He referred to the first and third
sentences of the bill. The second sentence would reverse a
long-standing practice of what the department considered
public information under AS 39.25.080 (authorized employee
compensation). The department believed that compensation
was authorized before it got paid, so that all compensation
was reportable in a gross amount; on that basis, the
Division of Finance had been able to periodically release
lists of employees who made more than $50,000, more than
the governor, or other numbers to the legislature and the
press. The information was considered public; the second
sentence would reverse that and force the department to
release only something like the authorized range and step
and bargaining unit. He believed the department would not
be able to respond to inquiries.
Senator Adams echoed concerns stated earlier related to
page 1, lines 7 and 8. He believed information was being
hidden from the public. He queried suggestions for fixing
the problem. Mr. McMullen suggested leaving the second
sentence out and moving the rest of the language someplace
else in statute related to public finances; the issue was
not personnel records but financial records.
In response to a question by Senator Pearce, Ms. Davidson
addressed concerns brought up by DOA, beginning with the
question of why the language was not in statute under the
Personnel Act. She explained that the instance the auditors
had come across related to certain financial transactions
that were wrapped around a personnel disciplinary action,
based on rules about what a disciplinary or a personnel
action was. The Division of Legislative Audit had
recommended the measure be placed where it was so that
confidentiality did not include limiting public access to
information about the use of public funds.
Ms. Davidson reported that the second sentence was put in
by Legislative Legal Services when the bill was drafted.
She believed the concerns related to using the words
"actual amount paid" because while information about gross
pay was public, certain deductions, withholdings, and so on
were confidential and therefore should not be available to
the public. Legislative Legal had used the language for
clarification.
Senator Pearce (unclear and faint recording) referred to
the public nature of pay received by legislators. She
questioned why the information could not be made public.
Mr. McMullen responded that DOA was willing to do whatever
it could within broad constitutional protections of rights
to privacy. He claimed there were several ways to address
an employee who did something wrong. For example, criminal
activity could be prosecuted under criminal law, while
violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act could
be dealt with another way. Employee discipline could also
be used. The only option that seemed to fall under AS
39.25.080 was the employee discipline option. The
department believed that the financial transactions that
were the basis for finding the employee guilty were public
documents. The Division of Finance had considered the issue
and determined that the financial parts were already public
records. He understood that the two issues (the action
taken on the employee and the actions that were the basis
for taking the action) were intertwined. He was willing to
work on sorting the issues, including working with the
auditors.
Co-chair Sharp opined that the statement sounded "like
garbage" and suggesting moving the bill.
Senator Pearce thought more work could be done. She stated
concerns about accountability regarding the process because
of other issues. The public could not find out what the
disciplinary actions were in at least one case involving
alleged misuse of access to a private individual's police
records. She referred to an employee who got a promotion,
and "special prosecution" by the Department of Law. She did
not feel comfortable with the level of public access. She
agreed that the bill should be moved from committee. She
stated that she wanted the auditor and not Legislative
Legal to work with the department on streamlining language,
but she did not want to hold the bill in committee.
Co-chair Sharp agreed. He thought any attempt to bring in
three or four departments to work on something in the last
ten days of the session in the house of origin was a
stonewall tactic. He did not want to hold a bill when there
were no solid suggestions regarding what to do about the
problems.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT SB 358 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note.
Senator Adams commented that he had problems with line 7
but would not be opposing the motion.
There being no OJBECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 358 was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation
and attached zero impact fiscal note by the Office of the
Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|