03/06/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB353 | |
| HCR20 | |
| HB406 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 406 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2008
8:11 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet sites at
public libraries and to library assistance grants."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Encouraging the installation of fire sprinkler systems in
residences.
- MOVED CSHCR 20(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 406
"An Act relating to a requirement for competitive bidding on
contracts for the preparation of election ballots."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act relating to and increasing the amount of the 2008
permanent fund dividend; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act establishing a clean elections program in the state."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET FILTERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) STA, FIN
02/28/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/04/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 20
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/31/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/31/08 (H) L&C, STA
02/27/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/27/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/27/08 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/29/08 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 2NR
02/29/08 (H) DP: BUCH, GATTO
02/29/08 (H) NR: GARDNER, NEUMAN
03/04/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/04/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 406
SHORT TITLE: CONTRACTS FOR PREPARATION OF BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FAIRCLOUGH
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, FIN
03/04/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/04/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 353, noted the change made
in Version M.
BARBARA BERG, Director
Juneau Public Libraries
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
353.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 20 as prime sponsor.
KELLY NIKALOLO, Assistant Fire Marshal
Division of Fire and Life Safety
Central Office
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 20.
ERNIE MISEWICZ, Fire Marshal
Fairbanks Fire Department
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 20.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information during the hearing on
HCR 20.
RENEE LIMOGE, Staff
Representative Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 406 on behalf of
Representative Fairclough, prime sponsor.
KERRY NOBLIN
Peninsula Printing
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 406.
PATRICK FOSTER
A.T. Publishing and Printing
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 406.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained how HB 406 would impact the
division's business practices.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Central Office
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
406.
JASON HOOLEY, Special Assistant/Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding the practical aspects
of HB 406.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR BOB ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:10:59 AM. Representatives
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Roses were present at
the call to order.
8:12:13 AM
HB 353-PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET FILTERS
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to the blocking of certain
Internet sites at public libraries and to library assistance
grants."
8:12:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 25-LS1356\M, Bannister, 3/5/08, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version M was before the
committee.
8:13:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 353, said the change made in Version M was the exemption
of the university libraries from the proposed required Internet
filters. He said he supports Version M. In response to a
request for information pertaining to the cost of the filtering
system, made by Representative Doll at the last bill hearing, he
said the commissioner of the Department of Administration
[Annette Kreitzer] has committed to researching cost comparisons
and looking into the possibility of a group license, and has
said she would send someone to testify before the next committee
of referral. In response to a question from Vice Chair Roses,
he said Ms. Kreitzer did not indicate how long it would take to
compile that information; however, he guaranteed that the
information would accompany the bill into the next committee of
referral.
8:16:55 AM
BARBARA BERG, Director, Juneau Public Libraries, addressed a
misconception she heard at a prior bill hearing that if an
application was not made for the federal E-rate, then the state
would have to pick up the cost. She explained that the federal
E-rate is a reimbursement and discount program. A library
applies for the discount, based on the services it is receiving,
and the Internet service provider (ISP) or telecommunications
provider is the one that gets the payment from the federal
government. The ISP or telecommunications provider passes that
on to the library either in the form of a discounted bill or by
requiring the library to apply in July after the end of the
fiscal year, and not reimbursing the library until fall. She
said there really is not a way that E-rate funding can ever
displace state budgeted funding, because the state budgeted
funding is something for which libraries can plan in their
budgets and use for operations. Ms. Berg said when she prepares
her budget, she budgets for the full telephone cost, as if the
E-rate did not exist, in order to guarantee bills will be paid
when they arrive.
8:18:25 AM
MS. BERG said there had also been a statement made that
libraries that did not filter the Internet were out of
compliance with CIPA. She stated that the provision in the FCC
ruling that implemented CIPA was that if libraries did not
accept funding for Internet service, they were not obligated to
filter under CIPA; they would not be out of compliance with
CIPA, because CIPA would not apply to them. She said, "It was a
community decision that we not filter." She said that decision
comes about for libraries, not just because of the cost, but
also because the E-rate program is a complicated program for
which to apply and to which to comply. She added, "It makes
filing your income taxes look like a walk in the park." She
said she has one librarian who spends weeks every year trying to
comply with the telecommunications application process. She
stated that many of the small libraries operating only on the
state grant have no technical staff and don't have the ability
to spend weeks doing a total of [four] filings with the federal
government annually in order to get this money. Furthermore,
the level of complication rises "when you go for the Internet
funding." She offered further details. She concluded:
MS. BERG said at some point the discount the library gets is not
worth the staff hours. She said the Juneau Public Library
increased its Internet bandwidth last year and finds that the
discounts that Alaska Communications Systems, Inc. (ACS) and
General Communications Incorporated provide are greater than the
discount the library would receive from the federal program.
She concluded, "So, as a responsible administrator, I cannot
waste my city's money doing something that has no return, and I
think a lot of libraries are in that same situation."
8:21:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG urged members to look at Ms. Berg's
handout. He said he is troubled by [the information on the
handout] and urged "the committee or some other to take up these
subjects that you mentioned."
MS. BERG, in response to a remark from Representative Gruenberg,
said she does not remember what the authorizing legislation for
the E-rate subsidies is, but she would provide that information
later. She continued:
The universal service fund was set up - we all pay
into it when we pay our telephone bills. And ... for
years they had an offset for rural areas for
telecommunications, for telephone connections, so that
rural areas could get on telephone, and it was
extended under the universal service fund to cover
Internet connection, as well, for schools and public
libraries. And the universities have never been
covered by this funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if ISPs and telecommunication
companies are required under federal law to pass on the
discounted rate to libraries.
MS. BERG answered, "If they receive the payment under the
universal service fund, they are obligated to reimburse the
discounted portion of the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Must they do that immediately,
or can they [make] significantly delays in receiving that fund?"
MS. BERG answered, "They can make significant delays in
receiving it. In fact, one year ... there was a dispute in
Congress as to whether they were going to authorize the funding
or not, and our application process was held up, and it was
unclear as to how much would be funded or if it would be
funded."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited a sentence from Ms. Berg's
handout, which read: "In all-volunteer libraries, the
administrative burden of complying with E-rate and CIPA can make
it impossible to apply for these funds." He asked, "So, really,
it is meaningless in some cases, and in that case the companies
keep this extra money they receive, right?"
MS. BERG responded that because she does not understand the
vendor's side of the operation, she probably should not make a
statement. However, she surmised that "they have to go through
an application and justification process to show who they're
giving a discount to." She said Representative Gruenberg would
have to ask someone from ACS or GCI "how it works on their end."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his concern regarding Ms.
Berg's written information.
8:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked how local control is measured and put
into effect.
MS. BERG replied that Juneau is unique, in that it has no formal
library board, but instead is authorized in the city charter;
therefore, Ms. Berg said, she answers to the city manager. She
said she discusses major decisions, such as whether or not to
filter the Internet, with the Friends of the Juneau Library;
however, that board is more of an informal advisory board than a
governing board, and its membership is drawn from "anybody who's
interested in the libraries." If there are complaints or
problems, the library manager hears about them and they are
heard before the Juneau Assembly.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that there is
a document by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University School of Law which presents both sides of the issue
related to HB 353.
8:26:41 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 353 was heard and held.
HCR 20-RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
8:27:06 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20, Encouraging the installation
of fire sprinkler systems in residences.
8:27:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HCR 20 as prime sponsor. He said each year in Homer [the fire
department] holds training sessions for the community to teach
fire safety. Representative Seaton described the experience he
had at one of the training sessions, during which he and others
stood in a trailer to witness a fire purposely started at the
other end of the trailer and doused by an automatic residential
sprinkler system. He said he was impressed by the
demonstration, because while a commercial sprinkler system will
not be set off before reaching 200-250 degrees Fahrenheit, the
residential sprinkler system will activate at 135-155 degrees
Fahrenheit. Furthermore, the residential sprinkler sends out
mist, so it uses much less water than the commercial sprinklers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the availability of residential
sprinklers gives Alaskans a great opportunity to protect against
fire-related loss. He said sprinklers can be retrofitted in
homes. He related that currently there are incentives available
for people who put sprinkler systems in their homes when they
are built; however, those systems require the national standard
of one-inch pipe and a coverage of 100 percent of the structure.
Representative Seaton reported that almost all the fires that
occur in Alaska in non-smoking households take place near the
cooking area, fireplace, or boiler/furnace. He indicated that a
sprinkler head can cover a 12-foot radius. He stated that the
purpose of HCR 20 is to encourage the government and insurance
companies to give a credit on homeowners' insurance for Alaskans
who retrofit sprinklers in their homes to cover "the vulnerable
parts of their home where most of the fires occur."
8:32:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that "platinum, gold, and silver
stars" are listed on page 1, line 14, [referring to the "various
levels of sprinkler coverage"]. He asked if Representative
Seaton would like an amendment to add the bronze star mentioned
in a handout in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the amendment is not necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his support of the resolution.
He asked the sponsor if he would like language added to the bill
which would require a progress report related to the fire
marshal's compliance with the resolution, perhaps to be given
after a year or two.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that he is comfortable with the
resolution without a report requirement.
8:34:39 AM
[Following is a video from YouTube, called, "Residential
sprinklers demonstration."]
8:38:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that the residential sprinkler
can be mounted directly onto overhead water line pipes, such as
are found in furnace rooms.
8:39:08 AM
[Following is a video from YouTube, entitled, "Fresno Fire PSA -
Fire Sprinkler."]
8:40:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that included in the committee
packet is: a draft plan produced by the fire marshal in 2006,
and a report showing that although [smoke detectors] are very
important, fire sprinklers are actually what save lives. He
noted that there were representatives from various fire
departments available to testify, as well as the state fire
marshal. He said the Department of Labor "does not even see a
fiscal note attached with this," because any of the
certifications necessary are already in place.
8:42:14 AM
KELLY NIKALOLO, Assistant Fire Marshal, Division of Fire and
Life Safety, Central Office, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
reported that according to the United States Fire
Administration, in 2005, the United States suffered
approximately 396,000 residential fires, which resulted in about
3,055 deaths. Those statistics, he said, do not account for
emotional loss of loved ones and sentimental possessions. Mr.
Nikalolo stated that even with [these statistics which show] an
abysmal loss of life, there is still a "substantial resistance
to requiring residential sprinklers in new construction today."
Furthermore, he indicated that there would be no way to support
such a requirement in Alaska. He said the Department of Public
Safety finds the aforementioned statistics unacceptable. He
stated, "It's incumbent upon us to value those properties that
embrace the responsibility of their own safety and reward them
for exercising uncommon sense and farsightedness."
MR. NIKALOLO said that as described in the proposed resolution,
the fire marshal would recognize levels of fixed fire protection
installed in single family dwellings through a program that
would be called, "the Residential Safety Star Program." He
explained that the fixed protection system would be installed by
qualified installers, as permitted under 13 AAC 50.035, "or
otherwise approved by the manufacturer in concurrence with the
State Fire Marshal's Office."
MR. NIKALOLO stated:
We feel we need that change in culture. For too long
our society has rewarded victim status to people who
have fires occur in their homes. We risk firefighter
and family member's lives to accidents and normal acts
of carelessness. We reward those incidents with an
outpouring of compassion, positive affirmation, and
financial assistance. Shouldn't we reward positive
proactive outcome rather than rewarding negative
results?
MR. NIKALOLO said HCR 20 would bring forth a voluntary,
positive, individual approach to fire safety within Alaska's
homes and would provide the means to reward families who invest
to protect the security of their homes by installing residential
fire sprinkler suppression systems.
8:45:27 AM
MR. NIKALOLO related a story wherein about 400 homes were built
in the North Slope Borough in the early '90s, each home equipped
with sprinkler heads. Since that time, there have been a couple
instances where residents there have been inebriated and fell
asleep while smoking, and woke up "wet but alive." Mr. Nikalolo
said, "We look at that program as being kind of the keystone of
what we're trying to accomplish here."
8:46:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mr. Nikalolo to clarify the
meaning of the language on page 2, lines 11-13, which read:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
encourages the state fire marshal to formalize the
model residential fire sprinkler system program as a
statewide program;
8:46:40 AM
MR. NIKALOLO prefaced his answer by noting that he was not [in
the department] in '96 "when this was first put forth."
Notwithstanding that, he estimated that the language means that
the legislature would, outside of bill form, give its blessing
for the state marshal to go forward with the program. He said
the program has no added cost or labor requirements. He said he
looks at the language as "a nondescript statement," because "it
doesn't direct anything, as far as program is concerned." He
concluded, "I think it's just kind of lending the name and the
power of the legislature in support of this." In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Johansen, he said he
thinks the reason the fire marshal would like the legislature's
backing for a program that costs nothing is because that support
will lend greater weight and increase public awareness.
8:49:09 AM
ERNIE MISEWICZ, Fire Marshal, Fairbanks Fire Department,
testified in support of HCR 20. He indicated that the public
views fires as something that happens to other people, and they
do not give them much thought. Mr. Misewicz said he is a 34-
year veteran of the fire service and has seen first hand the
devastation caused by fire, has carried children and adults from
fires who were either injured or killed, and has seen many lives
turned upside down and people displaced due to fire.
MR. MISEWICZ stated that people believe that the fire department
is there to protect them and "save the day," whereas in reality,
the fire departments do not have the chance to win the battle
with fire. He said, "With the rapid change in technology in the
way that we build and furnish our home, fire now grows
exponentially." He explained that living rooms are full of
large quantities of flammable solids that cause fires to build
so greatly. He relayed, "Fires now are reaching a point of
flashover within less than two minutes from the start of the
fire." Mr. Misewicz said great strides have been made toward
requiring early detection in homes, but "we still lack the means
to have that early intervention; the means to suppress these
fires." He said fire departments strongly believe that
residential sprinklers are the answer.
MR. MISEWICZ said builders have said they would put sprinklers
in residences only if there would be an increase in the value of
the home. He explained that construction costs are tight, and
if the builder cannot have that extra cost of the sprinkler
system realized in the bottom line, he/she is not going to
install the sprinklers. He emphasized the need to encourage the
installation of sprinkler systems in homes, as well as in
commercial buildings throughout the entire state. He said this
can be done in many ways: by changing building codes, through
breaks in insurance rates, by increasing the value of property
in which recognized sprinkler systems exist, and by recognizing
the full appraisal value for the life of that property rather
than just in the year in which it was installed. He said tax
breaks alone are not enough to off-set the cost of installing a
sprinkler system. He mentioned the possibility of "low-income
loans."
MR. MISEWICZ stated that the Fairbanks Fire Department strongly
supports both the installation of residential sprinklers and HCR
20 - the proposed resolution being one of the tools in the tool
box that will help promote installation of sprinklers. He said
there are groups working to make changes to residential code;
however, "there's still a lot of opposition out there." He
concluded:
If we want to impact the devastation caused by fires,
especially in the home, we need to start by passing
the resolution, and we need to look ... for ways to
promote and encourage residential sprinklers, and
maybe, at some point, requiring them. This way we can
go over there and save lives.
8:53:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned an initiative being
considered in Fairbanks that would increase the residential
property tax exemption, which would result in a reduction in the
amount of money that is available to fund firefighting. He
asked, "How would that sort of thing affect the ability of
people to protect their homes with fire suppression and fire
fighting from the local fire department?"
MR. MISEWICZ said he is not familiar with the initiative.
Notwithstanding that, he said early suppression efforts reduce
the amount of time and effort required of the fire department by
the time it arrives at the scene of a fire.
8:55:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked what the added cost would be to
install a sprinkler system in a 2,000-square-foot residence if
residential sprinklers were made mandatory.
MR. MISEWICZ said he has been told that retrofitting a home
costs approximately $1.50 per square foot, while installing
sprinklers in a new home costs roughly $.90 per square foot. He
noted that the cost equates to the expense of installing carpet
in a home.
8:57:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said he is not aware of any other
jurisdictions that have mandatory requirements [for residential
sprinkler systems]. He reminded Representative Gruenberg that
the program that the resolution would support is completely
voluntary. He pointed out the difference between retrofitting
homes completely and attempting to cover 85 percent of the
ignition sources in homes, the latter of which is what the
resolution is "trying to do." He said when people talk about
mandatory requirements, they are generally talking about
"through building codes." Much of Alaska, he said, does not
have enforced building codes that affect houses. Since the
resolution aims at encouraging all of Alaska to opt for
sprinkler protection, the resolution is not attempting to effect
something through mandatory building codes.
8:58:52 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES closed public testimony.
8:59:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if the resolution is attempting to
convince insurance companies to consider deductions and offer
incentives.
8:59:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that there are
two insurance companies in Alaska that currently offer credits,
but those credits are based on the national, 100 percent
coverage throughout the entire home. He said HCR 20 attempts to
get credits offered "for the protection from the ignition
sources that generally occur within Alaska." He referred to a
handout in the committee packet that shows three charts
depicting fire statistics in Alaska. One page, entitled,
"Applicable Fire Cause Comparison (2005-2007)," shows that in
2007, nine out of fourteen fire-related deaths were caused by
heat sources - the cause of the five other deaths was
undetermined. He indicated that the resolution could have a
huge effect on Alaskans, giving the incentive and ability to
homeowners to protect themselves and their families in the home.
9:00:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that the resolution does
nothing more than make a suggestion to the insurance company.
He asked if there are other states in which insurance companies
recognize partial coverage for "hot spot areas."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he is not aware of any
other states that do so. He said most states offer incentives
through building codes, and he reiterated that there are only
"some centralized municipalities that even require building
codes in Alaska." He said the state fire marshal has developed
the pilot program and has indicated it would be finalized. He
said insurance companies' charges are supposed to represent
their "loss experience"; therefore, there would be a reason for
the director of insurance to be asking the insurance company to
consider that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that some people had commented
on the high rates of plumbers, and he pointed out that simply
noting the cost of the sprinklers does not include the labor of
having them installed. He observed that there is a zero fiscal
note in the committee packet. He said he has seen it happen in
the past where the fiscal note started out at zero, a program
was started, and in ensuing years requests were made for money
to keep the program going. He said he is curious why [the
Department of Labor] would need to create a program and
curriculum to train licensed plumbers to "cut a pipe and have
them put a 'T' in there."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that a way to keep costs down is
to have a homeowner do the job him/herself and have a plumber
certify that "the [sprinkler] heads are there." He indicated
that this would give more authenticity, which would assure the
insurance companies that the job was done correctly. He said it
may cost more than $100 to do that certification, but in a
"normal" house, three sprinkler heads might be sufficient.
9:08:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said the bill sponsor has expressed that
the program and curriculum exist; therefore, he is not certain
why it is necessary that the resolution include language
regarding the creation of a program and curriculum. He said he
would likely offer an amendment to delete that language.
9:08:55 AM
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Labor Standards and Safety, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, in response to
Representative Johansen, confirmed that the training curriculums
do already exist, so the department would not be required to
expend effort to develop a curriculum. Since the resolution is
"advisory," he said, "a plumber can get the training or not."
Those with the training will get that additional training status
noted on their already existing license.
MR. MITCHELL, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen, explained that currently a plumber can install
sprinklers with a standard plumbing license. He explained, "I
think what we're talking about here is an advisory where you
would have a training program that's separate from the standard
that a plumber could get, as an addendum or an addition to their
plumbing license, for sprinkler fitting, specifically." In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Johansen,
he confirmed that there are some training programs that include
sprinkler systems as part of their training curriculum, while
others do not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed concern that another hoop is
being created for a plumber to jump through to prove he/she can
do a skill that is already part of his/her repertoire.
MR. MITCHELL responded, "I think that that's an accurate
statement."
9:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG queried, "Nothing in this resolution or
what you're contemplating would require a plumber to be
certified in that manner to make a certification that the home
has sprinklers, correct?"
MR. MITCHELL confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued, "So, it's not accurate to
say that there would be this requirement, is it? ... This
encourages you to develop the program so it would be available
to plumbers who wanted it; not that they'd be required to have
it to make the certification. Isn't that correct?"
MR. MITCHELL answered that's correct; it would not be a
requirement. He explained, "I think the issue is there would be
this question of whether or not the plumber had received that
training in order to get whatever benefit the insurance company
was providing. So, although it's not required, there would be
some kind of a mechanism to show that they had had that training
or not."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "If the homeowner wished to
prove the installation of complying sprinklers, would that ...
plumber have to have had that certification, or could another
plumber make the certification to the homeowner to be presented
to the insurance company? Would they have to go through your
program?"
MR. MITCHELL replied that he really does not know. He said,
"All that the resolution asks us to do is to develop a training
curriculum. The curriculum is already established, so, ... at
that point ... we're done. These secondary steps are kind of
'what-ifs,' and since it is all advisory, I don't know exactly
how it's going to develop."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to [page 2], lines
21-22, which notes that the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development would work with the state fire marshal. He
suggested that the department would also work with other groups,
such as unions.
MR. MITCHELL agreed that certainly the department would get
industry support and input on the training curriculum. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg,
he confirmed that the other input would come not only from
unions, but also from industry groups.
9:14:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the sponsor of the proposed
resolution how he would feel about including "and other groups"
after "state fire marshal".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that that would be fine, since
the whole idea is to create a synergy. He suggested that
instead of just "train licensed plumbers", the words "and
certify" could be added. He explained that the issue is not
about how to solder pipes and put in a 'T' - it's about
determining whether the sprinkler head is adequate to cover the
area. He offered further details. He stated that if the fire
marshal recognizes that preventing fires in the aforementioned
limited areas is of the greatest benefit, than many lives can be
saved in Alaska.
9:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she can see how the resolution could
have a ripple effect, and she expressed concern that [the
resolution] is "much more than meets the eye." She said
different homes are made out of different materials, for
example. There is a lot more to the resolution than "a simple
intent to prevent fires."
9:18:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mr. Mitchell if he has the ability
currently to exclude plumbers who do not have the required
"sticker."
MR. MITCHELL answered that the department's current authority
lies in statute and requires anyone working on a potable water
system to hold a plumber's "certificate of fitness" license. He
said, "These systems in the residential arena are going to be
part of that potable water system. So, in order to work on the
potable water system, they would have to have that certificate
of fitness." An exception he noted would be if a plumber is
working in a community with less than 2,500 people. In response
to a follow-up question from Representative Johansen, he said,
"I guess I'm kind of having trouble making the tie-in with this
bill, because I don't think that the bill has anything to do
with that requirement." He said if someone is doing plumbing
work that is subject to the Uniform Plumbing Code because it is
part of the potable water system, thus currently requiring a
certificate of fitness, that person does not need a sticker that
says he/she has had any training in sprinkler fitting or "those
kinds of things."
9:20:39 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES observed, "When you say they have to have the
certification; that's only if you're going to get a license as a
certified plumber in the state. If I'm a homeowner - I'm
building my own home - I don't have to have a certification, and
there is no regulation by the Department of Labor [and Workforce
Development] that governs that. ... I do have to get a building
inspection in my municipality, but I don't have to have a
certification. So, you're only talking about for licensure, is
that correct?"
MR. MITCHELL responded that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN restated his previously expressed
concern that although the bill has no weight in law, when the
legislature pushes in one direction, the department may end up
coming back with requests for expenditures. He said he agrees
with the intent of the bill; however, he has a problem with the
aforementioned language on page 2, lines 21-24.
9:22:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if lay people could also be
trained by the department.
MR. MITCHELL said he does not see any reason why the training
could not be offered to anyone who wished it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he had included licensed plumbers in
the language of the resolution because in most places building
inspectors are not required. He said plumbers who install
sprinkler systems currently are already licensed to do so, but
"this would allow the other plumbers that haven't been trained
in sprinkler systems to get that certification."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he fully supports the bill
and would not offer an amendment unless the sponsor approved it.
He asked if offering certification to homeowners who wished to
install sprinklers simply for the purpose of upgrading their
homes would be contrary to the purpose of HCR 20.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to encourage the
average person [to upgrade his/her home by installing sprinkler
systems].
9:26:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mr. Mitchell if the department
could handle allowing anyone to come before it and say, "Hey, I
want to do this," and if there would be zero fiscal impact if
that should happen.
MR. MITCHELL responded yes. He explained the reason is that the
curriculums already exist.
9:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she foresees that residential sprinkler
systems could become mandatory at some point in the future,
which would have tremendous impact on homebuilding and
insurance.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:27:49 AM to 9:30:21 AM.
9:30:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Vice-Chair Roses, said
the House State Affairs Standing Committee is the last committee
of referral for HCR 20 before the resolution is heard by the
House Rules Standing Committee.
9:33:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 2, line 22, following fire marshal:
Delete ","
Insert "and other groups"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "create a program and a curriculum to"
Page 2, line 23, between "train" and "licensed":
Insert "and certify"
Page 2, line 23, between "plumbers" and "install":
Insert "and others"
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL [objected for discussion purposes].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Doll,
confirmed that the reason for deleting the reference to a
program and curriculum is that those are already in place. He
noted that since Representative Gruenberg had moved Conceptual
Amendment 1, with "and other groups" added after "state fire
marshal", the addition of "and others" after "licensed plumbers"
is not needed. He said "others" would be certified, but the
state would not be getting into a training program for them.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Seaton how he
would like the language of Conceptual Amendment 1 changed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the language should read:
working with the state fire marshal and other groups
to train and certify licensed plumbers to install or
certify residential fire sprinkler systems.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained the purpose behind including
"and others".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not have any objection to
leaving that language in the amendment; however, he said he
wants the legislative intent clear that "we're not talking about
a workforce development program" where training take place.
9:36:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that upon
adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1, page 2, lines 21-24 would
read as follows:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
encourages the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, working with the state fire marshal and
other groups, to train and certify licensed plumbers
and others to install residential fire sprinkler
systems.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I don't know if I'm a homeowner
if you're going to, quote, 'certify' me, but I think the broad
sense is that the training is available."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she just received a note from a
constituent who is a member of a sprinkler fitters' union and
"thinks this is diluting it." She asked if the sponsor has
spoken with members of the union and whether "this is going to
be a potential problem."
9:37:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that he thinks the concern is that
the amendment would somehow affect commercial sprinkler system
installation. He emphasized that it would not.
9:38:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks the language clearly
specifies that the sprinklers affected are residential
sprinklers.
9:39:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL withdrew her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:39:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to report HCR 20, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR
20(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 406-COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR BALLOT PREP
9:39:51 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the final order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 406, "An Act relating to a requirement for
competitive bidding on contracts for the preparation of election
ballots."
9:40:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 406, Version 25-LS1487\C, Bullard,
2/28/08, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version C
was before the committee.
9:40:34 AM
RENEE LIMOGE, Staff, Representative Anna Fairclough, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HB 406 on behalf of Representative
Fairclough, prime sponsor. She said the intent of the bill is
to open the competitive bidding process and to allow for fair
business practices in Alaska. The bill includes an Alaska
bidder and product preference and would not subject the Division
of Elections to the procurement code. Furthermore, Ms. Limoge
said, the intent is not to affect the integrity of the ballots
printed or Alaska's election process. Currently, there is a
sole source contract for the printing of election ballots, and
the bill sponsor would like to open up that process to allow
other Alaska printers the opportunity to apply for the business.
9:41:44 AM
MS. LIMOGE, in response to a question from Representative Doll,
said currently there is one vendor that is certified. However,
she offered her understanding that the certification process is
no longer [required], so other printers would be able to apply.
When the certification process did exist, the cost was
prohibitive. She added, "And when it was a closed process,
there wasn't much need to do that."
9:42:26 AM
KERRY NOBLIN, Peninsula Printing, testified in support of HB
406, as follows:
Currently the Division of Elections is contracting
this work through one shop without giving other
qualified printing contractors the chance to bid on
the job. I can understand that the Division of
Elections has become complacent and comfortable with
their current arrangement and their sole printing
contractor, but the efforts that go into printing
these ballots are neither a technical nor
extraordinary effort. The printing of state election
specific ballots is a rather simple job when it comes
down to the process of completing it. The largest
challenge that face[s] any shop competing for the
contract is the sheer volume of that ballot, but there
are many printing contractors in Alaska that are
capable of handling these quantities.
Without putting these ballots out for bid, the state
is leaving itself to the mercy of one contractor,
allowing this contractor to dictate terms to the state
with regards to [the] pricing, quality, [and]
turnaround of this job. It is a bad policy to uphold
and it also stifles a strong, competitive atmosphere.
With state election ballots being put up for bid among
qualified Alaskan printers, not only will the state be
stimulating positive economic growth in the Alaska
printing industry, but it will also ensure that the
state is getting the best deal possible in terms of
price, quality, and turnaround.
The public bid process of the contracting of other
election ballots has been successful in the past, and
continues to be a success on a municipality and
borough level.
In closing, it is my belief that the state should
support this bill. The bill not only ensures the
state is getting the best deal possible, it will help
stimulate economic growth in the local printing
industry.
9:44:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked Mr. Noblin why he thinks the use of
one printing company puts the state in a position of having to
"obey this vendor."
MR. NOBLIN answered that because the state is not giving other
vendors the opportunity to bid on projects, there is no way of
knowing whether the single vendor being used is charging fair
prices; there is no means of comparison.
9:46:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a letter in the
committee packet, from Kevin Fraley, the general manager of
Super Software Inc. "DBA - Print Works," dated March 12, 2008.
He said he would like to know how Mr. Noblin would respond to
the information in Mr. Fraley's letter.
9:47:36 AM
PATRICK FOSTER, A.T. Publishing and Printing, testified in
support of HB 406. He said he has worked in the printing
industry in Alaska for nearly 30 years. He said the State of
Alaska used Diebold Election Systems' ("Diebold") electronic
ballot readers for the purpose of tallying votes from statewide
elections. Until recently, he noted, Diebold required printing
companies that print ballots used in its machines to be
certified by the company. At the time that the State of Alaska
adopted the use of Diebold's ballot readers in the mid-1990s, no
companies in Alaska were certified. Shortly after, a small,
Alaska printing company was certified, and the Division of
Elections has "sole-sourced approximately $2 million to this
company since." He said that has been done despite the fact
that a number of Alaska printing companies have voiced a desire
to be included in the process. Mr. Foster said his company
became a certified Diebold printer in 2003; however, today,
Diebold no longer requires certification, which removes an
expensive hurdle for many Alaska printing companies.
MR. FOSTER said he is aware that there is probably a certain
comfort level that the division has working with a printer that
has proven to do a good job. He said he works to give his
clients that same comfort, and recently has succeeded in
securing the ballot-printing contract for the Municipality of
Anchorage. He noted that Anchorage formerly sole sourced its
ballot printing out to another printer before making the
decision to put the ballot printing out to bid. The municipal
clerk, he said, was concerned about moving forward with a new
printer, but has since found that the change was not only
relatively easy, but also that the City of Anchorage has
benefitted by paying less for its ballots. He relayed that his
company has printed ballots for the Municipality of Anchorage
from 2005-2007, considered by Diebold to be among "the most
difficult ballots in the nation." He said the municipality has
put a new contract out for bid this year. Mr. Foster said, "I'm
certain that the ... Division of Elections would develop a fine
working relationship with any printing company that would be
awarded the contract."
MR. FOSTER said some might claim that the complexity of the
State of Alaska ballots is reason enough to leave things the way
they are, but he emphasized that nothing is further from the
truth. The task of printing a few hundred thousand ballots
would be daunting for some small shops, but those shops would
not bid on the project. There are many companies in the state
that are fully capable of handling the volume of work in the
time required, including the packaging and shipping logistics,
he said. The ballots require careful imprinting and packaging,
but are otherwise easy to produce - nothing beyond the scope of
many jobs produced by dozens of Alaska printing companies each
year. He said another concern is that the Division of Elections
could be bogged down putting ballots out to bid every two years.
Mr. Foster recommended that each bid be awarded for one election
cycle, with "a performance option for a second."
9:51:00 AM
MR. FOSTER stated that opening the election ballot to
competitive bid would have a variety of positive effects,
including the likely savings of a substantial amount of money.
The level playing field, he said, would open the door for more
Alaska printing companies to be involved, which would in turn
give those companies the opportunity to upgrade their facilities
and improve their standing in both the industry and the state.
Furthermore, the state would not have to put all its eggs in one
basket by relying on a single printing company.
9:52:26 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained how HB 406 would
impact the division's business practices. Prior to 2002, the
division had ballots printed by a company other than the current
vendor - a company outside of Alaska. She said the division is
thankful to have its ballots printed inside the state now,
because doing so alleviated many of its concerns regarding
getting ballots delivered on time, as well as other issues.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that ballots are the most important aspect
of conducting an election. The ballot printing process is
complex and requires a vendor that needs to know the processes
of the division and its timelines in order for the job to be
done correctly. If ballots are printed incorrectly and not
received on time, the result could be a disenfranchisement of
voters and an impairment of the division. Ms. Fenumiai
emphasized the importance of the report and of trust gained by
working with a vendor. She said the vendor needs to be willing
to stick with the division in the instance where something may
go wrong. She offered an example when, in 2004, the court
required ballots to be reprinted due to an initiative ballot
language summary, and the division's current vendor worked
around the clock and was able to get the ballots reprinted and
delivered on time, so that the general election was able to
proceed as it was supposed to according to statute.
MS. FENUMIAI relayed that the division follows the competitive
bid process for everything else it is required to do, for
example, purchasing envelopes, tally books, and the official
election pamphlet. She stated, "This is one area that we feel
is very, very difficult ...." She said she would give the
committee a timeline of statutory requirements that make a
competitive bid process impractical.
9:55:06 AM
MS. FENUMIAI stated that the only competitive bid process she is
aware of is what is referenced in the procurement code, which
she said she believes is a 21-day, competitive, sealed bid
process. She said there is some time allowed for a protest
period. She related that although she is not personally
familiar with the procurement code, Vern Jones, the state's
chief procurement officer, was available to answer questions.
She continued:
The division has very tight statutory deadlines.
Moving to a competitive bid process raises concerns
that the required timelines couldn't be met. There
are 22 days from the date the ballot is certified for
the primary election to the date the ballots need to
be issued in our offices.
9:56:04 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Ms. Fenumiai if she has observed a
significant difference between a ballot on the day it is
certified and the same ballot several weeks before that.
MS. FENUMIAI said she does not recall, but she offered to find
out and get back to the committee with an answer. She
continued:
For the general election, the timeline gets even
tighter; there are 16 days from the date [on] which
the ballot is sent to the printer and the date [on]
which the ballots have to be back in the division's
offices ready for distribution. And a lot of that is
contingent on when the primary election is certified,
because obviously we can't send the ballot to the
printer until the primary is certified.
The division is also concerned that the lowest bidder
may not also be the best bidder. There is a lot that
goes on other than just putting a template on a
printer and printing ballots out. The printer tests
ballots to make sure that the tiny marks and the fold
marks - the cut marks - are properly done. So, it is
more than just a simple copying job, for lack of a
better word. There's accountability involved. And
also, at the same time, many counties throughout the
nation are printing ballots, and ballot printers need
to know ahead of time if they're going to need to
order ballot paper, because there are literally
thousands in the nation that will be printing ballots
for a general election in November.
9:58:12 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Doll, said to the best of her knowledge there
have been no problems related to the present vendor and she does
not feel that the division has been dictated to by that vendor.
She said the division tells the printer what, how much, and when
it needs in terms of ballots, and she said to the best of her
knowledge the timelines have always been met by the current
vendor. The division decided in 2002 to find out if there was
any printer in the state of Alaska that would be qualified to
print ballots. At that time, Diebold required ballot printers
to be certified, and Print Works in Homer had gone through that
certification process. The division toured the plant, met the
owner, and felt comfortable that the business understood and
could meet the division's needs, concerns, and deadlines. She
concluded, "Ever since then, things have been fine."
9:59:54 AM
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the length of the ballot can change,
but the width remains the same. In response to a follow-up
questions from Vice Chair Roses, she confirmed that creasing and
folding issues can differ with the size of the page. At the
time the division would put out a bid spec for ballots, she
said, it "would not have a genuine, true idea if a ballot was
going to be an 8 1/2 by 11-inch ballot [or] an 8 1/2 by 14-inch
ballot until much closer towards the election."
10:00:27 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked if the bidding process would prevent the
division from getting a "variegated bid" that would allow the
printing companies to submit a different bid for each of the
possible ballot sizes.
MS. FENUMIAI deferred to Mr. Jones.
10:02:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he has spent some time in the
printing business, and he suggested that it may be efficient for
individual printers to "just buy the bigger paper" and cut it to
size.
10:02:30 AM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Central Office, Division
of General Services, Department of Administration, said during
the bidding process what needs to be known, regarding paper
used, is "the mix of how much of each size and what the price
would be" in order to come up with an accurate total. He said,
"Representative Johnson's solution would probably be much easier
to implement than simply getting pages per different price,
because you wouldn't know what the mix would be to know who
would actually be cheaper until the last minute, and that would
be too late."
10:03:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked, "Can you make, basically, a deal
that for this election cycle this company's going to ... be the
printer, and then deal with the deadlines on it?"
MR. JONES said he generally is an advocate of competition;
therefore "this" is a bit of a departure for him. He explained:
It's not so much the time built into the procurement
code, because the procurement code doesn't apply here,
but just practically how much time they have - given
the information they have when they have it - to get a
bid out, to get the product - the stock ship by the
vendor, I understand takes a couple of months, to get
the testing done - they have to have preliminary bids
in and ... all the machines have to be tested on the
... ballots that come back well before they're ready.
Gail mentioned reprints, as well. There's shipping
time - once the printer has its job done, they have to
be shipped to all different areas of the state. So,
it's not so much the time that the procurement takes,
as ... the very restricted amount of time that the
division has once they know what needs to be printed.
And again, that's not any reflection on the
capabilities of the printers out there. I don't think
the division's made the leap that the printer they're
using is the only one that can do the job; it's just
that the time involved to actually effect the
competition is very tight, and I would probably
venture to say that in some instances, in some
election cycles, it's definitely not practical to take
that time to go out and get the competitive bidding
that's required.
Something else I'd like to mention is that while the
bill doesn't subject the printing of the ballot to the
procurement code, it's silent on a number of issues
that the procurement code would probably be used to
step in and fill in the blanks. For example, there's
no ... protest provisions in the bill, so we would
likely look to the protest provisions of the
procurement code to fill in. Those ... entail giving
the vendor ten days after an award is made to protest.
And then there'd be the time necessary to respond to
the protest.
10:07:02 AM
MR. JONES said it is probably very important to have a comfort
level with a printer. That doesn't necessarily mean there is
only one printer involved, but there are other factors to
consider. He opined that "if this were going to be competed," a
request for proposals (RFP) would be what "you'd want," rather
than a bid process. He explained that with an RFP, the state
would be able to examine a printer's experience, history,
capability, physical plant, and perhaps financial credentials.
He stated, "This speaks against the bill, because an RFP is an
even longer procurement process than a bidding process." He
continued:
If the bill simply said we want to subject the
printing and ballots to the procurement code, there
would be much more flexibility there. The procurement
code has any number of procurement methods available
and exceptions, like limited competition procurements,
and so on. Now, I'm not suggesting that that be done,
I'm just saying that there would be a lot more
flexibility if that were the case.
10:08:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if one company can be chosen for a
specific election rather than undergoing another bid or process
"every time you turn around."
MR. JONES responded that it would be possible to do so; however,
the information that would be necessary in order to be able to
fairly evaluate "one versus the other" would depend on the
information that the division gets, and "it doesn't get it until
... 18 days before the ballots are needed to be in hand and
ready to be voted on."
10:10:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any language in the
proposed legislation that would prevent the division from
issuing a competitive bid process, effective in 2010, which
would apply for the next five years, and repeat the process
every five years thereafter. He said he thinks it would be ill-
advised to try to put a bid out for every election, but supports
the idea of contracts every five to seven years. He stated,
"Sixteen days in the printing world is a lifetime," thus, the
time frame does not concern him, but quality control does. He
said he could name a half dozen printers who could print ballots
for the state. He said he doesn't know if they could do it for
a better price than the printer the state currently uses, but he
doesn't think the division knows that answer either, which is
the purpose of [the bill]. He said the state could make a test
run be a requirement of the bid process.
MR. JONES said there is nothing in the language of the bill that
would prevent that from happening. He suggested that "a bid may
not be the appropriate vehicle for printing a ballot in this
case."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said perhaps the RFP process would apply.
He said there is a system by which the state could allow a
competitive process to "enter our election" without jeopardizing
the quality of that election. He said he thinks the bill needs
to be considered more closely. He said, "There is nothing that
should keep this from happening, and quite honestly, I don't
know why the Division of Elections hasn't done it anyway." He
said he thinks the state is probably spending more than
necessary for its ballots.
10:14:18 AM
MS. FENUMIAI responded that timing is an issue. She said there
are a lot of intricacies involved with printing ballots. A
significant amount of testing is done at the printer's shop and
at the Division of Elections to ensure that the ballots record
votes properly in the optical scan units.
VICE CHAIR LYNN asked if Representative Johnson's suggestion of
a rotating bid would allow "time for that to take place and
still have a competitive process."
MS. FENUMIAI replied that she believes it would be a better
process than getting bids every two years.
10:15:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how often the layout and the face
of the ballots actually change.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that the ballot would be on same type of
paper each year; only the names and races would change, along
with the length of the ballot. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Johansen, she said the placement of
the names of candidates and the ovals that are placed next to
each name shift with each ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he would like to know how much the
cost of printing ballots has increased in the last six to eight
years.
MS. FENUMIAI noted that, according to available records, the
2004 [primary] ballots totaled $156,229.25; general election
ballots for 2004 cost $264,546.28; and the reprinting of [the
general election] ballots for 2004 cost $235,802.87. The 2006
primary ballots cost $181,632.00; the 2006 general election
ballots cost $205,773.75. In response to Representative
Johnson, she explained that there had been a court order that
mandated the ballot summary language be changed on one of the
initiatives, which required every single 2004 general election
ballot to be reprinted. The prices fluctuate because of
quantity, size of the ballot, and paper [length], she noted.
10:18:48 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a question from Representative
Doll, offered more details regarding the certification process
previously required by Diebold.
10:19:50 AM
JASON HOOLEY, Special Assistant/Legislature, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, testified regarding the practical aspects
of HB 406. He stated that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor
supports competition; however, the flexibility afforded by
current statute has not led to a situation without standard or
lacking oversight. Conversely, that flexibility has allowed the
division to explore a number of areas that have led to quality
assurance and security measures that have served the division
well. That said, he reported that the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor does not oppose bill, but asks that the committee
continue to work with the division to address the practical
concerns articulated by Ms. Fenumiai and Mr. Jones.
10:21:03 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES closed public testimony, but said he may reopen
testimony for Mr. Fraley if he is available to testify at the
next committee hearing on HB 406.
[HB 406 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:21:40 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|