Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519

05/16/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 10 Minutes After Adjournment --
Heard & Held
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Moved HCS CSSB 25(STA) Out of Committee
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                       May 16, 2022                                                                                             
                         2:18 p.m.                                                                                              
2:18:20 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Merrick called the  House Finance Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 2:18 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative DeLena Johnson                                                                                                   
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Sara Rasmussen                                                                                                   
Representative Adam Wool                                                                                                        
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator Gary  Stevens, Sponsor;  Tim Lamkin,  Staff, Senator                                                                    
Gary   Steven;  Representative   Jonathan  Kreiss-Thompkins,                                                                    
Sponsor;   Jeff   Stepp,  Staff,   Representative   Jonathan                                                                    
Kreiss-Thompkins;   Representative   Chris  Tuck,   Sponsor;                                                                    
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Sponsor.                                                                                             
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Debra  Riddle, Division  Operations  Manager, Department  of                                                                    
Education  and  Early   Development;  Emily  Nauman,  Deputy                                                                    
Director,   Legislative   Legal   Services,   Alaska   State                                                                    
Legislature;   Gail   Fenumiai,    Director,   Division   of                                                                    
Elections, Office  of the Governor; Thomas  Flynn, Assistant                                                                    
Attorney General Department of Law.                                                                                             
HB 66     ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS                                                                                            
          HB 66 was HEARD and  HELD in committee for further                                                                    
HJR 1     CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV; EARNINGS                                                                              
          HJR 1 was HEARD and  HELD in committee for further                                                                    
CSSB 25(FIN)                                                                                                                    
          STATE GOV'T FINANCES: WEBSITE                                                                                         
          HCSCSSB  25(STA)  was  REPORTED out  of  committee                                                                    
          with  three "do  pass"  recommendations and  three                                                                    
          "no recommendation"  recommendations and  with one                                                                    
          previously  published   fiscal  impact   note:  FN                                                                    
CSSB 72(FIN)                                                                                                                    
          SEC. SCHOOL CIVICS EDUCATION                                                                                          
          CSSB 72(FIN)  was HEARD and HELD  in committee for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.                                                                           
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN)                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to civics education, civics                                                                               
     assessments,    and    secondary   school    graduation                                                                    
     requirements; and providing for an effective date."                                                                        
2:18:52 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick reported that SB 72 was heard during the                                                                       
morning meeting [05/16/22 9:00 A.M.].                                                                                           
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.                                                                                       
2:19:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick Closed public testimony.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Merrick  indicated there  was one  published fiscal                                                                    
impact  fiscal note  from the  Department  of Education  and                                                                    
Early Development (FN3 (EED).  She invited the department to                                                                    
review the  fiscal note. She indicated  Vice-Chair Ortiz and                                                                    
Representative Johnson had joined the meeting.                                                                                  
2:19:56 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:24:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair    Merrick     indicated    Representative    Wool,                                                                    
Representative Josephson,  and Representative  Rasmussen had                                                                    
joined the meeting.                                                                                                             
2:25:03 PM                                                                                                                    
DEBRA  RIDDLE, DIVISION  OPERATIONS  MANAGER, DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
EDUCATION  AND   EARLY  DEVELOPMENT   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
explained that there  would be a one-time cost  of $6000 for                                                                    
legal  fees to  implement the  necessary regulation  changes                                                                    
and for the development of  civics standards. The bill added                                                                    
reporting requirements  for the departments  data collection                                                                    
system that added setup costs.  In addition, grants would be                                                                    
offered  to  educators  in  all  school  districts  for  the                                                                    
development of a civics curriculum.                                                                                             
2:26:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon  MOVED to ADOPT the  previous committee                                                                    
substitute   that  was   adopted  in   the  Senate   Finance                                                                    
Committee,  CSSB   72(FIN),  32-LS0478\D,  as   the  working                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
Representative  LeBon   explained  that  the   current  bill                                                                    
version  referred  out  of  the  House  Education  Committee                                                                    
contained significant  changes. He noted that  the Committee                                                                    
Substitute  (CS)  eliminated  passing  a civics  exam  as  a                                                                    
requirement  for graduating  from  high  school. The  Senate                                                                    
Finance  Committee   CS  allowed  a  student   to  pass  the                                                                    
assessment with  a score  of at  least 70  percent, provided                                                                    
waivers  for  students  with  disabilities,  and  allowed  a                                                                    
student to take the test as  often as necessary to receive a                                                                    
passing score.  He offered that  an assessment  insured that                                                                    
the  educational  tools  were  working,  and  students  were                                                                    
learning.  Without  the  assessment, it  was  impossible  to                                                                    
measure  civics  education  proficiency among  students  and                                                                    
inform policy makers if changes were warranted.                                                                                 
2:28:05 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:34:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.                                                                                        
Representative  Wool OBJECTED.  He applauded  the desire  to                                                                    
include  civics  education  in  high  school.  He  mentioned                                                                    
 cramming  studying to  pass a test and  professed that most                                                                    
of  the information  was eventually  forgotten. He  believed                                                                    
that taking  a test  did not adequately  measure proficiency                                                                    
but felt that the civics  education was valuable. He thought                                                                    
that the topic  was complicated and some  of the information                                                                    
was  obtuse.  He  appreciated  the  desire  to  instill  the                                                                    
information. He  commented that students were  graduating at                                                                    
a very low rate and  currently there was a teacher shortage.                                                                    
He  asked  the  sponsor   whether  there  were  other  tests                                                                    
necessary to graduate and discovered  that no other test was                                                                    
required. He did not believe the test should be mandatory.                                                                      
2:36:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Rasmussen indicated  that if  the state  did                                                                    
not  have  a  way  to  measure  whether  the  students  were                                                                    
learning the information, she would  prefer not to adopt the                                                                    
bill. She  spoke of personal  experience in high  school and                                                                    
that without  the testing she  did not want to  fully engage                                                                    
in   required  classes.   She   thought   that  without   an                                                                    
assessment,  it would  be difficult  to measure  whether the                                                                    
curriculum  was  successful  and  contributed  to  a  better                                                                    
education  or if  the time  would be  wasted. She  supported                                                                    
adopting the CS.                                                                                                                
Representative Carpenter thought that  if the test model was                                                                    
based on the U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services Test                                                                    
(copy  on file)  that  contained 128  Civics questions,  the                                                                    
student would not need to  retain all the information with a                                                                    
70 percent passing grade standard.  He hoped that all school                                                                    
curriculums addressed 70 percent  of the material throughout                                                                    
a childs   education. He thought  that there  were questions                                                                    
he would  have a  difficult time answering  but some  of the                                                                    
information was important to  know. He exemplified questions                                                                    
concerning  what  the  rule  of law  was  and  the  nations                                                                     
economic  system.  He  restated  that with  a  score  of  70                                                                    
percent at least  a percentage of the  information should be                                                                    
retained  before the  student  engaged  in civic  activities                                                                    
like voting.  He opined that  he could forget  a significant                                                                    
amount of Algebra, but there  were many things on the civics                                                                    
test  he  should never  forget.  He  deemed that  graduating                                                                    
students  lacking  a  Civics instruction  was  probably  the                                                                    
reason  for the  current societal  problems. He  favored the                                                                    
2:40:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair   Ortiz  agreed   with  most   of  Representative                                                                    
Carpenter's statement.  However, he deduced that  out of the                                                                    
128  question test,  the teacher  would  randomly select  20                                                                    
questions. He thought that some  of the questions were good,                                                                    
but some  were  open-ended.  He wanted  to better understand                                                                    
how  the  test  questions  were  given  to  perspective  new                                                                    
citizens for citizenship. He was  curious about how the exam                                                                    
was distributed, and how the information was taught.                                                                            
Co-Chair Merrick invited Mr. Lamkin to comment.                                                                                 
2:43:01 PM                                                                                                                    
TIM LAMKIN,  STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVEN,  explained that the                                                                    
legislation  was  intended  to  direct the  state  Board  of                                                                    
Education  and   the  Department  of  Education   and  Early                                                                    
Development   (DEED)  to   develop  a   curriculum  and   an                                                                    
assessment that was based on  the immigration test. The bill                                                                    
was  not prescriptive  nor  mandated  rote memorization  but                                                                    
rather to prompt conversations  regarding what was important                                                                    
in  Civics.  He  emphasized  that the  exam  was  not   high                                                                    
stakes    but the  issue was   high stakes   because of  the                                                                    
current national environment.                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Ortiz agreed  with Mr.  Lamkins  statements.  He                                                                    
liked the idea of promoting  civics education but was unsure                                                                    
whether extracting  questions from the citizenship  test was                                                                    
the  best  way  to  instill   the  importance  of  a  Civics                                                                    
2:45:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Lamkin  indicated  that critical  thinking  was  a  key                                                                    
phrase regarding  the bill.  He pointed  to the  document in                                                                    
members  packets  titled  SB 72, Promoting  Civics Education                                                                    
in  Alaska  (copy  on  file), that  included  a sampling  of                                                                    
online  Civics   resources.  He  expounded  that   the  U.S.                                                                    
Naturalization test  was an  online interview  and resource.                                                                    
The  prospective  citizen was  given  all  the questions  in                                                                    
advance and all  the potential answers. There  was no single                                                                    
correct answer  and there was  a list of all  the acceptable                                                                    
correct answers.                                                                                                                
2:46:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson cited  Mr. Lamkins  statement that                                                                    
the sponsor felt  that teaching Civics was  an important for                                                                    
addressing  the   current  issues  facing  the   county.  He                                                                    
wondered if  the sponsor  had some  description of  what was                                                                    
going  on in  the country.  He  felt that  the question  was                                                                    
 provocative.   He  wondered  if   the  issues  were  a  new                                                                    
phenomenon. Mr.  Lamkin deferred to Senator  Stevens for the                                                                    
answer.  Representative Josephson  shared that  all he  read                                                                    
was biographical  and historical  writings for  pleasure. He                                                                    
noted  that he  had regretted  his vote  to repeal  the high                                                                    
school qualifying  exam. He agreed that  people would forget                                                                    
the answers but  thought it would likely  make people better                                                                    
Representative  Rasmussen  thought  that  presently  in  the                                                                    
country  there were  many citizens  that did  not understand                                                                    
Civics; the  three branches of government  and separation of                                                                    
powers. She believed that if  people were more knowledgeable                                                                    
of  how  the  3   branches  worked,  they  could  scrutinize                                                                    
campaign  promises.  She  thought   that  the  root  of  the                                                                    
country's  problem   was  lack  of  knowledge   of  how  the                                                                    
government  worked.   She  believed  that   teaching  Civics                                                                    
instilled  more tolerance  and would  benefit the  state and                                                                    
the country.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Merrick  indicated  that Representative  Tuck  and                                                                    
Representative Kreiss-Thompkins had joined the meeting.                                                                         
2:50:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Carpenter ascertained  that the proposed test                                                                    
was not the only element  based off the Citizenship test. He                                                                    
believed that the value was  in the curriculum based off the                                                                    
questions and  the ability  of the  teacher to  connect with                                                                    
students,  ensure learning,  and  ultimately produce  better                                                                    
citizens.  He did  not think  there would  be as  good of  a                                                                    
connection if  there was not  a way to measure  teaching the                                                                    
curriculum. He believed  the value was in both  the test and                                                                    
the curriculum and  the test was a common  base of knowledge                                                                    
that  all  Americans  should  know.  He  hoped  that  future                                                                    
generations  would   be   better   off   than   the  current                                                                    
generation with Civics education.                                                                                               
Co-Chair Merrick  reported Representative Edgmon  had joined                                                                    
the meeting.                                                                                                                    
2:52:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wool noted  that the  legislature eliminated                                                                    
the graduation  exit exam. He  purported that  many subjects                                                                    
were  required in  school.  He  had taken  a  class in  U.S.                                                                    
History. He  maintained that if  students passed  the class,                                                                    
it was assumed  that some of the knowledge  was retained. He                                                                    
pointed  out that  exit exams  were not  required for  other                                                                    
important subjects  like math and history.  He stressed that                                                                    
tests  were administered  as  part of  the  course work.  He                                                                    
reminded  the  committee  that   if  students  do  not  pass                                                                    
required classes they  do not graduate and  pointed out that                                                                    
the  states   graduation rate  was  low.  He contended  that                                                                    
adding another  mandated test prior to  graduating would not                                                                    
help  the graduation  rate. He  opined that  a Civics  class                                                                    
would not have  prevented the storming of the  U. S. Capitol                                                                    
on January  6, 2019. He  declared that every  generation had                                                                    
issues and  Civics should be  taught in schools  because the                                                                    
way  history was  interpreted was  viewed through  different                                                                    
lenses  over   time.  He  supported  mandating   Civics  but                                                                    
strongly opposed requiring the test for graduation.                                                                             
Representative  LeBon appreciated  the  spirited debate.  He                                                                    
indicated  that  a  school  board  set  the  curriculum  and                                                                    
decided whether  a class was  a requirement or  an elective.                                                                    
He  recalled when  Alaska  History was  an  elective in  the                                                                    
Fairbanks School District. He  suggested that a consolidated                                                                    
class of  U.S. History and  Alaska History was a   darn good                                                                    
idea.  He  voiced that  if the bill  passed with  a mandated                                                                    
exam, it  alerted the school  boards to take action  and set                                                                    
the standards so the graduating  seniors could pass the test                                                                    
by at least 70 percent.                                                                                                         
Representative Wool MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.                                                                                   
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Merrick                                                                         
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster                                                                                 
The MOTION FAILED (5/5).                                                                                                        
The MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 72(FIN) FAILED.                                                                                        
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due to the                                                                           
co-chairs as soon as possible.                                                                                                  
CSSB 72(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                        
2:59:17 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:00:27 PM                                                                                                                    
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1                                                                                                  
     Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State                                                                      
     of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund and to                                                                     
     appropriations from the Alaska permanent fund.                                                                             
3:00:37 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick reported that the bill was last heard on                                                                       
September 10, 2021. She invited Representative Kreiss-                                                                          
Tompkins to begin his presentation.                                                                                             
3:00:56 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-THOMPKINS, SPONSOR, thanked                                                                      
the committee and noted that he had a committee substitute                                                                      
for the committee to consider.                                                                                                  
3:01:36 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:02:07 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Foster   MOVED   to  ADOPT   proposed   committee                                                                    
substitute  for SSHJR  1,  Work  Draft 32-LS0167\N  (Nauman,                                                                    
5/15/22)(copy on file).                                                                                                         
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins indicated  the most  notable                                                                    
change was found in Section 2,  page 2, line 1. He explained                                                                    
that  the CS  constitutionally guaranteed  a permanent  fund                                                                    
dividend (PFD) payment  as provided  by a formula set out in                                                                    
law. He added  that whatever the statutory  formula that was                                                                    
set  in   law  would  be  constitutionally   guaranteed.  He                                                                    
announced that it was the major change in the bill.                                                                             
3:03:34 PM                                                                                                                    
JEFF      STEPP,     STAFF,      REPRESENTATIVE     JONATHAN                                                                    
KREISS-THOMPKINS, read the  CS for Speaker Stutes  for HJR 1                                                                    
Explanation of changes: Version G to Version N:                                                                                 
     Section  1:  Version  G   included  references  to  two                                                                    
     subsections, (b) and (c). Because  a new subsection was                                                                    
     added,  there is  now a  reference  in Section  1 to  a                                                                    
     third  subsection,  (d).   Each  of  these  subsections                                                                    
     provides  for  the use  of  income  from the  Permanent                                                                    
     Section  2:  The  major  change to  Version  N  is  the                                                                    
     addition  of  the language  in  (b)(1)  which says  the                                                                    
     legislature  "shall  appropriate  an  amount  from  the                                                                    
     permanent fund  for dividend  payments to  residents of                                                                    
     the State  as provided  by a formula  set out  in law."                                                                    
     Subsection  (b)(2)  is  new  language  that  says  each                                                                    
     fiscal year  the legislature "may appropriate  from the                                                                    
     permanent fund to the general  fund." Subsection (c) of                                                                    
     Version  N, like  subsection (b)  of Version  G, limits                                                                    
     appropriations  from the  Permanent Fund  to 5%  of its                                                                    
     average  market  value  for   the  first  five  of  the                                                                    
     preceding  six  fiscal  years. Subsection  (d)  is  new                                                                    
     language  providing that  subject to  appropriation the                                                                    
     permanent  fund may  be used  to  pay costs  associated                                                                    
     with  investing   and  managing  the  Fund,   which  is                                                                    
     consistent with current practice.                                                                                          
     Section  3:  Language  in Version  G  relating  to  "an                                                                    
     amount equal  to the  unencumbered balance  on November                                                                    
     8,  2022," was  changed  to "November  30"  in the  new                                                                    
     version  of the  resolution.  The November  8 date  was                                                                    
     added  in a  previous committee  to provide  protection                                                                    
     from a withdrawal from the  ERA between the date of the                                                                    
     election and the deposit of  the ERA into the permanent                                                                    
     fund on  June 30, 2023.  In the  new version of  HJR 1,                                                                    
     the date was changed from  November 8 (i.e., the day of                                                                    
     the 2022  general election) to  November 30  because it                                                                    
     is  not   possible  for   the  Alaska   Permanent  Fund                                                                    
     Corporation to  compute an accurate balance  of the ERA                                                                    
     other than  at the month-end when  bank reconciliations                                                                    
   are received with all of the underlying account data.                                                                        
     Section 4 is unchanged from  the prior version and says                                                                    
     the constitutional  amendments proposed by HJR  1 shall                                                                    
     be on  the ballot in  the next general  election (i.e.,                                                                    
     November 2022)                                                                                                             
3:06:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  indicated Representative  Kreiss-                                                                    
Tompkins  had  become  an  expert  on  the  subject  through                                                                    
serving as Chair  of the State Affairs  Committee. He firmly                                                                    
believed in  eliminating the Earnings Reserve  Account (ERA)                                                                    
and  having  a  single  endowment   in  the  corpus  of  the                                                                    
Permanent  Fund (PF).  However,  he planned  on offering  an                                                                    
amendment deleting  the language, "as provided  by a formula                                                                    
set out  in law   because the  formula was  unaffordable and                                                                    
needed  reform.  He  favored   language  comparable  to  the                                                                    
states  general  welfare clause or the  public health clause                                                                    
that  ambiguously   provided the  guarantees. He  was unable                                                                    
to support the CS as written.                                                                                                   
3:08:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins  appreciated  and  respected                                                                    
Representative Josephsons   perspective. He  thought version                                                                    
N  was  a motion towards  where he thought the  median block                                                                    
of  the  27  votes  would  be  in  the  house  and  was  the                                                                    
 pragmatism behind the CS.                                                                                                      
3:09:07 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Rasmussen  would not  be able to  support the                                                                    
legislation   without  some   reference  to   the  statutory                                                                    
payment. She  deduced that the legislature  would retain the                                                                    
ability  to change  the payment  statute. She  asked whether                                                                    
she was correct.                                                                                                                
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins  deferred  the  question  to                                                                    
Legislative  Legal Services  but deemed  that Representative                                                                    
Rasmussen was correct.                                                                                                          
3:10:01 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:10:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick invited Ms. Nauman to comment                                                                                  
3:10:51 PM                                                                                                                    
EMILY NAUMAN,  DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE  LEGAL SERVICES,                                                                    
ALASKA   STATE  LEGISLATURE   (via  teleconference),   asked                                                                    
Representative   Rasmussen   to    restate   her   question.                                                                    
Representative  Rasmussen   asked  whether  there   was  any                                                                    
provision  in the  CS prohibiting  changing the  current PFD                                                                    
formula  in statute.  Ms. Nauman  responded  that there  was                                                                    
nothing that  would prohibit the  legislature to  change the                                                                    
statute  or formula.  The resolution  required a  PFD payout                                                                    
based  on  the  formula  in statute  but  did  not  prohibit                                                                    
changing  the statute  at  any time  with  a majority  vote.                                                                    
Representative  Rasmussen  suggested  that  currently  there                                                                    
were  two  conflicting  statues   surrounding  the  PFD  and                                                                    
exemplified the  current statutory  formula and  the Percent                                                                    
of Market Value (POMV) formula.  She inquired how that would                                                                    
be  reconciled with  the  resolution.  She hypothesized  the                                                                    
adoption of  a new  statutory formula without  repealing the                                                                    
old  formula. Ms.  Nauman indicated  the resolution  did not                                                                    
contemplate what would happen  if there were two conflicting                                                                    
formulas in law. She offered  that it could potentially be a                                                                    
difficult issue that would result  in litigation. She stated                                                                    
that even though  there was  math problem   with the current                                                                    
formula  for  the  dividend  and the  formula  for  the  ERA                                                                    
account,   they  did   not  technically   conflict  if   the                                                                    
resolution was enacted.                                                                                                         
Representative Carpenter  asked if two formulas  existed how                                                                    
would  the  legislature  choose one.  He  deduced  from  Ms.                                                                    
Naumans   answer that  the courts  would decide.  Ms. Nauman                                                                    
responded  in  the  affirmative  that  the  situation  would                                                                    
result  in litigation  and the  court would  determine which                                                                    
formula  was intended  to be  followed.  She furthered  that                                                                    
rules of  statutory construction existed that  would guide a                                                                    
court  in  its  decision.   She  related  that  courts  were                                                                    
generally deferential to more recent  statutes, but it was a                                                                    
complicated  situation. Representative  Carpenter had  hoped                                                                    
for a simple  answer. He referred to Section  4 which talked                                                                    
about  placing the  issue to  a vote  and wondered  when the                                                                    
election  would   take  place.  Ms.  Nauman   indicated  the                                                                    
resolution was  structured so it  would be on the  ballot in                                                                    
the general election in November 2022.                                                                                          
3:15:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wool referenced the  language  as provided by                                                                    
a  formula  set out  in  law.   He stressed  the  difference                                                                    
between  a   formula and  the  formula.  He inquired whether                                                                    
 a  formula  referred to  the only  formula in  current law.                                                                    
Ms. Nauman responded that the  21 percent of net income with                                                                    
the  trailing  5-year  average   was  the  current  dividend                                                                    
formula.  She  interpreted  the bill  to  mean  the  current                                                                    
statutory formula. She pointed  out that the current formula                                                                    
in law  created a  math problem with  the current  5 percent                                                                    
POMV draw.                                                                                                                      
3:17:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wool  asked that if  the PFD formula  did not                                                                    
exceed 5  percent of  the draw,  whether it  would eliminate                                                                    
the conflict. He deduced that  if the 5 percent draw covered                                                                    
the PFD  formula there would not  be a conflict even  if the                                                                    
legislature  would  need  to  find  other  ways  to  provide                                                                    
government services. He asked if  he was correct. Ms. Nauman                                                                    
responded in the affirmative and  stated that was the reason                                                                    
she referred  to the issue as  a math problem rather  than a                                                                    
conflict. Representative Wool cited  the Senates  version of                                                                    
the operating  budget and  noted that  the $5,500  PFD would                                                                    
exceed the  POMV draw. He  shared some of the  same concerns                                                                    
as   Representative  Josephson   that  would   override  the                                                                    
Wielechowski  Decision that  ruled the  PFD was   subject to                                                                    
appropriation.  He  was concerned by the  language mandating                                                                    
a  payout without  changing the  formula  first. He  guessed                                                                    
that  there might  be  a temptation,  if  the provision  was                                                                    
enshrined in  the constitution, not  to change  the formula.                                                                    
Ms. Nauman added that the  bill contained the 5 percent POMV                                                                    
draw limit  in Subsection (c)  and the amount  available for                                                                    
the dividend  would be capped  in the constitution by  the 5                                                                    
percent draw.                                                                                                                   
3:20:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins  thought it would  be helpful                                                                    
to contemplate  the resolution  along with  a change  to the                                                                    
formula, specifically a POMV-based  formula so that everyone                                                                    
used  the  same  numbers.  The  amount  would  always  be  a                                                                    
percentage of the POMV and  there would never be a conflict.                                                                    
Politically,  it   was  a  very   high  bar  to   amend  the                                                                    
constitution.  He  guaranteed  that there  were  not  enough                                                                    
votes   without   the   formula   being   rewritten   in   a                                                                    
collaborative  way  between the  four  caucuses  in the  two                                                                    
bodies. He suggested  that it was a lens to  view the recent                                                                    
version of the CS.                                                                                                              
3:22:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wool   understood  Representative   Kreiss-                                                                    
Tompkins's desire  to change the  formula based on  the POMV                                                                    
percentage. He was  concerned that the bill  could easily be                                                                    
amended to  change the provision  that the PFD  payout would                                                                    
be  based  on a  formula  set  in  statute. He  wondered  if                                                                    
Representative    Kreiss-Tompkins   shared    his   concern.                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins  voiced   that  he  was  not                                                                    
concerned.  He was  aware of  14 house  members that  shared                                                                    
Representative  Wools  policy  beliefs. He  deduced that  if                                                                    
such an  amendment were to  pass, he was confident  that the                                                                    
two/thirds support  necessary for the  underlying resolution                                                                    
would   evaporate.  He   characterized  it   as  a    safety                                                                    
3:24:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon  agreed with  rolling the ERA  into the                                                                    
corpus  of  the  fund  and   pointed  out  that  traditional                                                                    
endowments worked in the same  way. He worried about locking                                                                    
an  expectation  and a  formula  into  the constitution.  He                                                                    
wondered   whether    Representative   Kreiss-Tompkins   had                                                                    
considered  separating the  bill into  two steps.  The first                                                                    
step would  be to  consolidate the ERA  into the  corpus and                                                                    
then establish  the POMV draw formula  into the Constitution                                                                    
and   abandon   the   other    provisions   in   the   bill.                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins responded  that the  current                                                                    
version of  HJR 1 prior  to the adoption  of the CS  was the                                                                    
exact  bill  Representative  LeBon described.  However,  the                                                                    
two/thirds support  was lacking. He  believed that it  was a                                                                    
political question of  where to find the  support to resolve                                                                    
the long  standing issues that kept  repeating session after                                                                    
session.  He effectively  supported constitutionalizing  the                                                                    
POMV and that was in the prior version of HJR 1.                                                                                
3:26:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  asked  Ms.  Nauman if  SB  26  [-                                                                    
Approp Limit  & Per  Fund:Dividend;Earnings/ CHAPTER  16 SLA                                                                    
18/06/13/2018]  mentioned  the  PFD  and if  there  was  any                                                                    
concern that  HJR 1 would  stack a generous dividend  on top                                                                    
of another dividend.                                                                                                            
Ms. Nauman replied  that the provision created in  SB 26 was                                                                    
AS 37  13.140. (b), which  set out  the POMV cap  drawn from                                                                    
the PF  each year.  She added  that SB  26 did  not directly                                                                    
deal  with  the dividend  or  change  the dividend  formula.                                                                    
Another  provision in  the bill  allowed  any excess  amount                                                                    
after  the  dividend was  paid  from  the  POMV draw  to  be                                                                    
deposited into the  GF. She noted that  the  legacy  formula                                                                    
was in AS 37.13.145 that  specified 50 percent of 21 percent                                                                    
of the earnings. She did not  believe that the bill could be                                                                    
interpreted to double the dividends.                                                                                            
Representative Carpenter  read from  a portion of  Section 2                                                                    
of the  resolution on  page 2,  line 2 and  page 1  line 16,                                                                    
 may  appropriate from  the permanent  fund  to the  general                                                                    
fund   versus    shall  appropriate   an  amount   from  the                                                                    
permanent fund for dividend payments.   He wondered if there                                                                    
was  a  need to direct where  the money was going  to from a                                                                    
technical point of view.                                                                                                        
3:30:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Nauman  responded  that  there  were  actually  several                                                                    
questions in Representative Carpenters query. She answered                                                                      
whether the  resolution needed to  be specific  regarding if                                                                    
money needed  to be  deposited into  the dividend  fund. She                                                                    
explained  that  the  dividend   fund  was  in  statute  and                                                                    
drafters  avoided   referring  to   state  statute   in  the                                                                    
Constitution because  statutes were more subject  to change.                                                                    
Section 2,  b (1)  simply required that  an amount  shall be                                                                    
appropriated  for   a  dividend   to  state   residents  and                                                                    
purposefully not  specific to a  dividend fund in  the event                                                                    
that a dividend  fund was one day eliminated.  Section 2 (b)                                                                    
(2)  referred  to  the  general  fund  because  it  was  the                                                                    
established  state fund  in existence.  Once  the money  was                                                                    
transferred to  the general fund  it could be spent  any way                                                                    
the legislature saw fit. The word   may in Section 2 (b) (2)                                                                    
indicated  that   the  legislature   was  not   required  to                                                                    
appropriate from  the PF and  deposit the money into  the GF                                                                    
whereas the  shall  in Section  2 (b) (1) required the money                                                                    
to  be   appropriated  in   accordance  with   the  formula.                                                                    
Representative Carpenter  suggested that  in the  current CS                                                                    
if a scenario  existed where the fund failed  to grow enough                                                                    
to  meet the  5  percent draw,  then  the legislature  could                                                                    
decide to pay  a dividend but not draw any  more funds since                                                                    
the money  would be drawn  from the  corpus of the  fund. He                                                                    
noted that  the SB 26  structure allowed the  legislature to                                                                    
withdraw  funding  from  the   corpus  thus,  degrading  the                                                                    
corpus. He  deduced that the  bill gave the  legislature the                                                                    
 wiggle room   to pay the  dividend but not  appropriate any                                                                    
more  funding into  the GF  for other  purposes in  order to                                                                    
avoid  degrading   the  corpus.  Under  the   scenario,  the                                                                    
resolution mandating a payment of  the dividend and with the                                                                    
5 percent POMV  draw going into the  corpus, the legislature                                                                    
would  be  degrading the  corpus  to  pay the  dividend.  He                                                                    
deemed that a number of  bad investments earning years would                                                                    
create the  scenario. He  believed that  the POMV  5 percent                                                                    
draw  gave the  legislature  the ability  to   get into  the                                                                    
corpus   but  also  allowed   the  legislature  to  withhold                                                                    
appropriations for other purposes.                                                                                              
3:33:54 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins agreed  that the  word  may                                                                     
was operative and did not  obligate the legislature to spend                                                                    
the full  amount of  the 5 percent  POMV draw.  He clarified                                                                    
that the   notion of degrading  the real value of  the fund                                                                     
was  going down  a rabbit hole.  He thought  in a rule-based                                                                    
framework that was in the  constitution that in the long run                                                                    
the  funds  real  value would  be protected.  Representative                                                                    
Carpenter was  trying to draw  a distinction.  He stipulated                                                                    
that any year's  particular 5 percent draw  could be greater                                                                    
or less than that years   earnings. He clarified that if the                                                                    
fund experienced  a decline over  a number of years  and the                                                                    
decline  was factored  into the  5-year  lookback, the  draw                                                                    
could  be from  the  corpus  of the  fund.  He compared  the                                                                    
scenario to the  21 percent of the years   net earnings that                                                                    
was never  deposited into the  corpus    if it went  to zero                                                                    
earnings in a particular year there would be no dividend.                                                                       
3:37:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  directed   his  question  to  Ms.                                                                    
Nauman.  He indicated  that over  the  past 5  years he  had                                                                    
received  emails from  citizens that  wanted the  draw limit                                                                    
exceeded  and  cited  a  previous   statute  from  1982.  He                                                                    
wondered  if  under  the  resolution  if  someone  wanted  a                                                                    
dividend greater  than 5 percent, they  had a constitutional                                                                    
problem.  Ms. Nauman  replied that  Representative Josephson                                                                    
was  correct that  the resolution  constitutionalized the  5                                                                    
percent draw  cap, the legislature  could not  withdraw more                                                                    
than 5  percent of the average  market value of the  PF, and                                                                    
subject to  cap the legislature  would pay out  the dividend                                                                    
based  on law.  However, nothing  prevented the  legislature                                                                    
from paying out an additional  amount on top of the dividend                                                                    
under the formula in law.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Foster  indicated that some members  had amendments                                                                    
and discussion ensued.                                                                                                          
3:40:22 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:43:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  asked that members submit  their amendments                                                                    
as soon as possible.                                                                                                            
Representative Josephson indicated  that the dividend payout                                                                    
in the current year according  to statute would require $2.7                                                                    
billion. He  wondered whether  the governors   signature was                                                                    
necessary  for a  resolution  and guessed  that  it was  not                                                                    
required.  He  declared  that  he   could  not  support  the                                                                    
resolution  as  it was  written  without  the formula  being                                                                    
changed.  He supported  reforming the  formula and  that the                                                                    
50/50  split  was   too   dangerous   and  not  conservative                                                                    
enough. He wondered  whether the governor would  veto a bill                                                                    
that  changed  the  formula, while  the  resolution  passed.                                                                    
Representative      Kreiss-Tompkins      confirmed      that                                                                    
constitutional  resolutions did  not require  the Governors                                                                     
signature  and  was  forwarded  to  the  voters  of  Alaska.                                                                    
Ultimately,  coordination  was  necessary  for  any  formula                                                                    
statute change. He suggested that  if there was coordination                                                                    
and alignment, the PFD formula  change bill would be sent to                                                                    
the governor for a signature  with the caveat that only upon                                                                    
signature,  the resolution  would  be voted  on. He  guessed                                                                    
that there might  be other sequencing that could  work via a                                                                    
coordinated effort.                                                                                                             
3:46:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  thought  that a  provision  would                                                                    
need  to  be  included  in  the  resolution.  Representative                                                                    
Kreiss-Tompkins answered in the  negative. He deemed that if                                                                    
there   was  a   corresponding   PFD   formula  change   the                                                                    
legislature could  hold onto the resolution  until after the                                                                    
governor signed  a formula  change bill  and then  allow the                                                                    
resolution to proceed to a  final vote. He restated that the                                                                    
common  denominator in  the scenario  was that  coordination                                                                    
was necessary.  Representative Josephson was  concerned with                                                                    
the issue of contract law.  The governor could state that he                                                                    
would  sign  the  bill,  but   he  could  revoke  his  word.                                                                    
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins  clarified that  the governor                                                                    
could  sign  a  formula  change  before  the  constitutional                                                                    
amendment  resolution  was  voted  on  by  the  legislature.                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  asked  if the  process  could  be                                                                    
completed in the following  56 hours. Representative Kreiss-                                                                    
Tompkins believed it was implausible.                                                                                           
3:49:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster reiterated amendments were due directly.                                                                        
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins  relayed  that he  would  be                                                                    
offering an amendment to insert  the word "eligible" on page                                                                    
2, line 1  before the word  residents   reading  payments to                                                                    
eligible residents of the state.                                                                                                
3:50:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Foster  indicated   he  would   be  setting   the                                                                    
resolution aside.                                                                                                               
HJR  1  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 66                                                                                                             
     "An Act  relating to voting, voter  qualifications, and                                                                    
     voter   registration;   relating  to   poll   watchers;                                                                    
     relating  to absentee  ballots and  questioned ballots;                                                                    
     relating   to   election   worker   compensation;   and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
3:50:56 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CHRIS TUCK,  SPONSOR, introduced  HB 66.  He                                                                    
explained  the purpose  of the  bill. He  reported that  the                                                                    
bill  dealt  with  modernizing the  elections,  voting,  and                                                                    
ballot  processes  through  a   series  of  mechanisms  that                                                                    
ensured more  access, security,  transparency, and  faith in                                                                    
the states   election systems. He  elaborated that  the bill                                                                    
originally created  an option for permanent  absentee voting                                                                    
for  individuals  that  plan  to   vote  by  mail  in  every                                                                    
election. In 2020,  due to the COVID  pandemic, 365 thousand                                                                    
Alaskans voted  by mail, which  made it the  most successful                                                                    
election  in  history  with the  highest  number  of  voters                                                                    
participating. He relayed other  provisions from the Sponsor                                                                    
  ? Requiring the Division of Elections to offer a voter                                                                        
       the option to fix a mailed-in absentee ballot if                                                                         
       there are errors.                                                                                                        
     ? Calling for the same early voting locations to be                                                                        
       available during every election.                                                                                         
     ? Clarifying that candidates and groups sponsoring                                                                         
       ballot initiatives can have poll watchers.                                                                               
Representative  Tuck communicated  that HB  66 was  heard in                                                                    
the State  Affairs Committee in  the prior session  with the                                                                    
knowledge that  there were other election  bills in process.                                                                    
He  worked  comprehensively   with  other  legislators,  the                                                                    
Senate, and the Lieutenant  Governors  office to produce the                                                                    
current version  of the bill.  He listed all  the provisions                                                                    
contained  in the  bill: absentee  ballot curing,  permanent                                                                    
absentee   voting,   updating    voters   lists,   voluntary                                                                    
cancelation  of  voter  registration,  ballot  security,  an                                                                    
election  offense hotline,  an  absentee ballot  application                                                                    
process,   signature   verification  program,   watermarking                                                                    
ballots, prepaying postage costs  for absentee ballots, same                                                                    
day voter registration, increased  pay for election workers,                                                                    
election audits, risk limiting  audits, forensic audits, and                                                                    
open source software.                                                                                                           
3:55:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  acknowledged the great  effort put                                                                    
into crafting the  bill. He asked what was in  the bill that                                                                    
appealed to  both progressives that wanted  to expand voting                                                                    
opportunities and to conservatives  that were concerned with                                                                    
election  security.  Representative  Tuck thought  that  the                                                                    
question was  difficult to answer.  He indicated  that there                                                                    
was no opposition  from outside voter groups  to the current                                                                    
version of  HB 66. He  proposed listing the  provisions that                                                                    
were originally  in SB  39 [Ballot  Custody/Tampering; Voter                                                                    
Reg; Mail] sponsored by Senator  Shower. He interjected that                                                                    
some  provisions in  the  bill were  also  from the  various                                                                    
governors   election  bills.  He   commented  that  all  the                                                                    
election bills had  some sort of ballot  curing. The current                                                                    
legislation included  the best process. He  thought everyone                                                                    
wanted to  see a cure  in ballots and  did not think  it was                                                                    
neither conservative  nor liberal. He interposed  that HB 66                                                                    
and HB  39 included permanent absentee  voting. In addition,                                                                    
the  governors   voting  bills  allowed  voters  to  request                                                                    
absentee ballots  for up to  4 years and were  then required                                                                    
to reapply.  His only concern  with doing it  the governor's                                                                    
way,  was that  someone  might forget  they  had to  reapply                                                                    
after the fourth  year.  He noted that  updating the voter's                                                                    
list came  out of SB 39,  and the governor's bill.  The same                                                                    
applied  to  cleaning  up  the  voter  rolls. The  provision                                                                    
concerning voluntary  cancelation of voter  registration and                                                                    
the election offense hotline was  derived from SB 39 as well                                                                    
as chain  of custody ballot  security. He noted that  in the                                                                    
last municipal election the same  ballot tracking system was                                                                    
successfully  used. Signature  verification provisions  were                                                                    
taken  from  HB  66  and  SB 39.  He  detailed  that  HB  66                                                                    
eliminated  the  second  signature  requirement  and  SB  39                                                                    
employed  signature   verification  machines  used   in  the                                                                    
Anchorage Municipal  election. He pointed out  that absentee                                                                    
ballot applications  provisions mostly resulted from  HB 66,                                                                    
but  a few  were from  the  governors  bill.  He noted  that                                                                    
watermarking ballots was a provision  from SB 39 and prepaid                                                                    
postage costs,  same day  voter registration,  and increased                                                                    
pay  for election  workers statutes  were  contained in  the                                                                    
original  version of  HB 66.  The election  audit provisions                                                                    
were from a combination of  all bills. He clarified that the                                                                    
proper  terminology for  election audits  was risk  limiting                                                                    
audits  and typically  not forensic  audits.  He noted  that                                                                    
forensic examinations  only applied to the  routine forensic                                                                    
examinations of  each precinct tabulator prior  and after an                                                                    
election.  Finally,   the  open  source   software  proposal                                                                    
originated out of the collaborative process.                                                                                    
4:01:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter  cited   the  concept  of   ballot                                                                    
harvesting,   when  ballots  were  collected  on  behalf  of                                                                    
voters  and  taken  to  a  drop box  or  polling  place.  He                                                                    
wondered   if  the   issue  was   addressed  in   the  bill.                                                                    
Representative  Tuck  responded  that it  was  not  directly                                                                    
addressed. He  furthered that the ballot  security and chain                                                                    
of custody  provisions closely monitored ballots.  It proved                                                                    
difficult to  determine how  to address it  in the  bill. He                                                                    
deferred further answer to the Division of Elections.                                                                           
Co-Chair Foster noted Ms. Fenumiai was online.                                                                                  
Representative  Tuck   interjected  that  the   bill  placed                                                                    
restrictions  on organizations  sending voters  applications                                                                    
for  absentee ballots  because  voters  were inundated  with                                                                    
applications  during  the  prior mail  in  ballot  election.                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter referred  to the  upcoming special                                                                    
election for  the interim  federal House  of Representatives                                                                    
seat  that  would  be  a  vote by  mail  only  election.  He                                                                    
expressed concern  regarding every voter receiving  a ballot                                                                    
and the potential for ballot  tampering. He wondered how the                                                                    
bill prevented the  situation from occurring. Representative                                                                    
Tuck replied  that the  bill did not  address the  issue. He                                                                    
shared that  the bill was trying  to seek a balance  and did                                                                    
not  address the  more controversial  issues. He  noted that                                                                    
some  wanted all  mail in  elections.  Personally, he  liked                                                                    
being able  to bring his  children to the voting  polls with                                                                    
him. The bill attempted to provide  a sense of safety in the                                                                    
election  cycles  by  adding   the  new  security  measures.                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter  was aware  that  the  bill was  a                                                                    
compromise.  He inquired  what  would  prevent ballots  from                                                                    
being fraudulently  submitted in  a mail in  ballot election                                                                    
where ballots  could be delivered  to drop boxes  or polling                                                                    
4:05:18 PM                                                                                                                    
GAIL FENUMIAI,  DIRECTOR, DIVISION  OF ELECTIONS,  OFFICE OF                                                                    
THE  GOVERNOR (via  teleconference), relayed  that currently                                                                    
mail  in  ballots required  an  identifier  and a  witness's                                                                    
signature. The  procedures had  been in  statute for  a long                                                                    
time. She  believed that  they served  a special  and unique                                                                    
purpose  in  deterring  voter   fraud.  The  bill  addressed                                                                    
signature verification for all by  mail elections and was an                                                                    
added layer of  security. She noted that  all mail elections                                                                    
were  only  carried  out under  special  circumstances.  She                                                                    
delineated  that the  upcoming by  mail election  to fulfill                                                                    
the  remainder of  the deceased  Representative Don  Youngs                                                                     
congressional house  seat was done  by mail because  of time                                                                    
constraints for  scheduling an election.  She added  that an                                                                    
all-mail-in ballot  election for a statewide  election was a                                                                    
rare occurrence.                                                                                                                
4:06:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter asked  if the  bill would  have to                                                                    
pass  regarding signature  verification  or  whether it  was                                                                    
already  in place.  He was  worried about  signature forging                                                                    
for the  upcoming election and  wondered if  safeguards were                                                                    
in  place.   Ms.  Fenumiai  responded  that   there  was  no                                                                    
signature verification currently  in statute. She reiterated                                                                    
that  what  was  currently  needed from  the  voter  was  to                                                                    
provide  an identifier  and  the ballot  was  signed in  the                                                                    
witness of another  voter. She expounded that  it would take                                                                    
an act  of collusion  to fraudulently  vote in  the upcoming                                                                    
mail  election.  The  identifier  would have  to  match  the                                                                    
identifier  on  the  voter's  record  when  the  ballot  was                                                                    
returned.  Representative  Carpenter  deduced  that  someone                                                                    
committing  fraud  would  only need  the  witness'  personal                                                                    
identifier and  they could forge the  witness' signature. He                                                                    
asked if he  was correct. Ms. Fenumiai  responded, "That was                                                                    
a correct statement."                                                                                                           
4:09:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson asked  if the  bill would  be well                                                                    
received in  the other  body. Representative  Tuck responded                                                                    
in the  affirmative. He  noted that  the current  version of                                                                    
the  bill was  mostly identical  to the  Senate version.  He                                                                    
guessed that concurrence by both bodies was likely.                                                                             
Representative Carpenter asked  Representative Tuck to point                                                                    
out   the   section    regarding   signature   verification.                                                                    
Representative Tuck  deferred the  answer to  the Department                                                                    
of Law.                                                                                                                         
4:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
THOMAS FLYNN,  ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT  OF LAW                                                                    
(via  teleconference),   noted  that  the   provisions  were                                                                    
contained in Section 44 and in Section 46.                                                                                      
Representative  Tuck appreciated  the  consideration of  the                                                                    
bill. He had been involved  with election revisions over the                                                                    
years. He noted the good effort among all contributors.                                                                         
Co-Chair  Foster   indicated  he  would  be   recessing  the                                                                    
4:13:49 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
6:16:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster reported  there was  one item  left on  the                                                                    
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 25(FIN)                                                                                                
     "An Act  relating to the establishment  and maintenance                                                                    
     of an  Internet website providing information  on state                                                                    
     government  financial transactions  and specifying  the                                                                    
     information to  be made available  on the  website; and                                                                    
     relating  to  the   Alaska  Checkbook  Online  Internet                                                                    
6:17:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  indicated the bill  was last  considered on                                                                    
May 10,  2022; at  which time a  number of  questions arose.                                                                    
The department  answered them in  an email sent  to members'                                                                    
offices  yesterday.  He  asked committee  members  if  their                                                                    
questions were sufficiently answered.                                                                                           
Representative  Wool MOVED  to  report CSSB  25(FIN) out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
HCSCSSB  25(STA) was  REPORTED out  of committee  with three                                                                    
"do  pass"  recommendations  and three  "no  recommendation"                                                                    
recommendations  and with  one  previously published  fiscal                                                                    
impact note: FN 2(ADM).                                                                                                         
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, thanked the committee.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Foster  reviewed  the  agenda  for  the  following                                                                    
6:18:34 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.