Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/13/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB406 | |
| HJR19 | |
| HJR38 | |
| HJR19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 406 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2008
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 406
"An Act relating to a requirement for competitive bidding on
contracts for the preparation of election ballots."
- MOVED CSHB 406(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to opposition to the Real ID Act of 2005.
- MOVED CSHJR 19(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Recognizing the State of Israel on the 60th anniversary of its
founding.
- MOVED CSHJR 38(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to correct obsolete references to the office of secretary of
state by substituting references to the office of lieutenant
governor and to eliminate personal pronoun references in the
sections proposed to be amended.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
03/06/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/11/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 19
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE FEDERAL ID REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
04/13/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/07 (H) STA
03/13/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: ISRAEL 60TH ANNIVERSARY
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/11/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/08 (H) STA
03/13/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 406, reviewed the
changes made in Version E.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding a printer
certification process during the hearing on HB 406.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB 406.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a more in depth explanation of HJR
19 on behalf of Representative Coghill, prime sponsor.
BRODY ANDERSON, Staff
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a perspective on HJR 19 on behalf
of Representative Kawasaki, co-sponsor.
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Staff
Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 38 on behalf of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined the work that has been going on in
the department in relation to the Real ID Act during the hearing
on HJR 19.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR BOB ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07:15 AM. Representatives
Coghill, Johnson, Doll, and Roses were present at the call to
order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 406-COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR BALLOT PREP
8:07:54 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first 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."
[Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/6/08, was
the committee substitute (CS), Version 25-LS1487\C, Bullard,
2/28/08.]
8:08:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 406, Version 25-LS1487\E, Bullard, 3/11/08, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
8:08:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature,
reviewed the changes incorporated into Version E. She noted
that after the prior bill hearing, she had discussed the
concerns of the committee with [Gail Fenumiai], the director of
the Division of Elections, and Vern Jones, the chief procurement
officer for the Division of General Services, and she offered
her understanding that there is now concurrence regarding the
issues of timing and the exclusion of the ballot bidding process
outside of the procurement code.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reviewed that Representative Coghill's
concern had been that following the procurement procedure, in
relation to ballots, would be an arduous process, especially in
terms of special elections. She reviewed that Representative
Doll wanted to know if there would be an additional cost
involved in doing a request for proposal (RFP), and she said the
director of the Division of Elections thinks since Version E
would allow a competitive bid process under a bidder proposal,
there would be no increase in fiscal obligations for the
division.
8:10:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, regarding the certification process,
said she has not heard back from Premier Elections [Solutions] -
formerly Diebold [Election Systems] ("Diebold"), and before that
Global Election Systems; however, she said it is rumored that
when the original developer of the hardware had proprietary
provider options on the balloting, it developed the
certification process so that no one else could compete against
those who were building and selling the hardware. She deferred
to Ms. Fenumiai for an update on that matter.
8:10:49 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said she spoke with a representative from
Premier Election [Solutions] about the printer certification
process and was informed that it was started as a courtesy to
customers. When optical scan technology was brand new,
customers were concerned about printers being able to print the
ballots properly so that they would be able to be fed into the
AccuVote units and read properly. However, the company became
too big and it was no longer economically feasible for them to
continue that process, and it was not something that was
required of Premier Election [Solutions]. Additionally, Premier
Election Solutions purchased a printing company and determined
it had a conflict of interest. That, she concluded, is the
reason that the certification of printers ceased.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH added that Alaska state law does not
require the certification; it is a quality measure. She
indicated that one of the reasons that she chose the RFP process
versus the bid process in Version E was based on testimony of
"the current provider" that the points of utmost importance
would be outlined through the RFP process.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that's correct. She added that the
proposal process would allow the division to consider factors
other than just the lowest bid.
8:12:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reviewed that Representative Johnson,
at the last bill hearing, had suggested five years for the
length of time an individual printer would be awarded the
state's contract for ballot printing; however, she said one year
is better, because the state can hold the printer accountable
for performing in a timely manner, as well as for producing the
quality work necessary. Furthermore, she said the Division of
Elections would offer the bid in an "off year" to ensure that a
printer can perform before the general election year arrives.
8:13:47 AM
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that's correct.
8:13:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to a question from
Representative Doll, said the division would ensure the quality
of the ballot. She spoke of printers that are showing what they
can provide, noting that Anchorage has a competitive bid process
already.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL remarked, "You can follow written
specifications, but unless you go through a testing, it may not
work."
8:15:56 AM
MS. FENUMIAI offered her understanding that under the current
process, as the printer runs official ballots, those ballots are
run through a testing process to make certain the "timing" marks
are in the correct places and that the folding marks do not
infringe on them. She said the division would ensure that
testing procedures were in place for that.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the one-year process
would include multiple years of renewal options to be determined
at the proposal.
8:16:46 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked if the option would be designed only as
one exercised by the state or if it would also be exercised by
the printer.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH responded it would be determined in
the RFP whether the printer wanted to "be under the state's
specification."
8:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked the bill sponsor to clarify what the
new language is on page 4, [lines 2-5], which read as follows:
Sec. 15.15.031 Contracts for the preparation of
election ballots. (a) Except as provided in (b) of
this section, the director shall award a contract for
the preparation of election ballots to the most
advantageous offeror whose proposal conforms in all
material respects to the requirements and criteria set
out in the request for proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said the new language is "advantageous
offeror", which is a term of art in procurement code.
8:18:05 AM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration, explained that
"advantageous" is used to mean "the proposal deemed most
beneficial to the state through evaluation criteria that's
published in the RFP."
8:18:57 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Vice Chair Roses, confirmed that when
HB 406 first surfaced, it proposed a low bid takes all
situation, which caused him concern regarding ambiguities of
timing in relation to procurement code requirements for bid
circulation time, protest period, and official written notice.
He said he thinks the changes made in Version E address some of
those concerns. For example, Version E would allow a number of
factors to be listed in addition to price so that the state
could look for a printer that would produce the best quality and
value. He said, "I am also convinced that given the timing and
the plan to have term contracts in lieu of individual, yearly,
or election-cycle contracts, ... the division will be able to go
out with enough time, get a contractor on board, and meet their
time frame."
8:20:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that the term, "Alaska product"
is defined in Version E, beginning on page 4, line 28. In
response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, she
referred to language [on page 4, within lines 6-8], which read
as follows:
(b) The director shall award a contract based on
solicited proposals to the most advantageous,
responsive, and responsible offeror after an Alaska
offeror preference of five percent and an Alaska
product preference of seven percent.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated her intent that Alaskans get
awarded the contract. However, she noted that currently in
Alaska there is only one printer that has an Alaska product
certificate, and it is not the current printer. She said she
was assured by Kevin Fraley, who is the current printer, "that
he had been an Alaska product provider before and had that
certificate." Representative Fairclough said the certificates
are issued, at no charge, by the Department of Commerce, and
established a number ranking for how much of a printer's service
is made in Alaska. She reiterated that she is trying to make
certain Alaska contractors are awarded printing bids from the
State of Alaska. She added, "So, that's why I support that
preferential in this product." She suggested Mr. Jones may have
a differing opinion on the subject.
8:23:04 AM
MR. JONES said he supports the sponsor's intent to ensure the
job goes to an Alaskan firm. He said he thinks it almost has to
because of the logistics involved, and he mentioned that there
is a lot of shipping to many sites. He related that his only
reservation with an Alaska product preference is that, as the
sponsor noted, there is currently only one vendor who has that
certificate; all the others living in Alaska and presumably
qualified would certainly qualify to obtain that preference. He
explained his concern has to do with the timing it takes for the
Department of Commerce to qualify a firm and put it on a list
that is only published twice a year. A new printer may start
work in the state and miss the publishing cycle and not qualify
in time for preference. The result, he indicated, could be that
one Alaskan firm could be distinguished over another. Mr. Jones
suggested the committee consider "eliminating that preference
and simply increasing the Alaska bidder preference." He
concluded, "It would have the same effect, and the printers
wouldn't have to go through this ... process, which I guess, in
my opinion, if you're in Alaska, if you're printing, I don't
know what ... purpose that serves."
8:25:03 AM
MR. JONES, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said he knows of no legal opinions about the product
preference, whereas he said he thinks the bidder preference has
been vetted several times and has survived the lawsuits. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg,
he said the "offeror" would be the person who submits a
proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the aforementioned 5 and
7 percent are so substantial, the result may be to "knock
anybody else out," particularly if there is only one firm that
qualifies. He expressed concern about whether, in the event of
a lawsuit, an administrative law judge would consider "the
constitutionality of this" or whether "it would have to go up on
an appeal to the [Alaska] Superior Court and then the [Alaska]
Supreme Court," which could slow the process down considerably
and also increase the cost. He added, "... I don't know that we
want to push the envelope, at least right away on this."
8:26:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said "Alaska product" is defined in AS
36.30.338.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Version E refers to a
definition of "Alaska product" [from AS 36.30.338(2)], which
differs from the definition of "Alaska product" found in [AS
36.30.338(1)], as follows:
(1) "Alaska product" means a product of which not
less than 25 percent of the value, as determined in
accordance with regulations adopted under AS
36.30.332(a), has been added by manufacturing or
production in the state;
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated her disagreement, adding that
the [statute] referenced on line 30 of Version E refers to that
subsection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted that [the statute] is only
[referenced] in [subparagraph] (A). "Then you have to add
[subparagraphs] (B) and (C). Those are not in the current
definition as I read it," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH clarified, "We did not define
'product' or 'recycled Alaska product'; that's under the
certification that if anyone got the certification that they
would go through."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the terms "produced or
manufactured" are defined in the current statute. He then
pointed out that the statute referenced, AS 36.30.338, only
refers to [paragraph] (2). He suggested distributing this
statute to the committee members as he read it as a different
definition. Paragraph (2) of AS 36.30.338 read:
(2) "produced or manufactured" means processing,
developing, or making an item into a new item with a
distinct character and use through the application
within the state of materials, labor, skill, or other
services;
8:29:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said Legislative Legal and Research
Services prepared the language "to be Alaska product that would
fall under the certification under the Department of Commerce
..., and if it doesn't meet that I'm happy to amend it to do
that."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that the definition
presented in Version E is different than the existing
definition. He asked Mr. Jones if he concurred.
MR. JONES answered that he wasn't sure since the bill references
that statute.
MR. JONES related that although there are two preferences, which
total 12 percent, the way the RFP works, cost is not going to be
100 percent. He said the preferences act on cost. He stated,
"So, for example, if the evaluation factor for cost was 50
percent, these preferences would, in essence, equate to a 6
percent advantage to an Alaskan firm."
8:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said a printer who is chosen by the state
would have a considerable investment in printing ballots;
therefore, he recommended the contract term be made as long as
possible. Doing so, he said, would save money and ensure
quality.
8:33:05 AM
MR. JONES, in response to a question from Representative Doll,
explained that the term "advantageous" is a term of art used
across the country and probably listed in Black's Law
Dictionary. He noted that "responsive" and "responsible" are
procurement terms either defined in statute or regulation.
8:35:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the definition of the word
"staffed" on page 4, line 14. He said even if a business was in
the state, its staff may not be.
8:36:01 AM
MR. JONES replied that the phrasing is "from the existing Alaska
bidder preference in statute," and is interpreted to mean that
the firm has a physical presence in the state, with employees
doing the work on site. It does not include a person renting a
suite and Post Office box and having phones answered out of
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to establish that
["staffed"] and "advantageous" are terms that, although not
familiar to everyone in the legislature, are defined by the
agency's common law.
MR. JONES responded, "We've certainly had many numerous protests
and appeals and lawsuits using the RFP with that language ...
contained in it."
8:38:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not want any legal
problems regarding [the definition of "Alaska offeror" and
"Alaska product"], on page 4, line 9,.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she would be happy to make a
request of Legislative Legal and Research Services to "clarify
the intent of the difference in the language."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would leave that to the
discretion of the bill sponsor. He said he does not have a
problem with moving the bill.
8:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 406, Version 25-LS1487|E, Bullard, 3/11/08, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 406(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 19-OPPOSE FEDERAL ID REQUIREMENTS
8:40:04 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Relating to opposition to the
Real ID Act of 2005.
8:40:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 19, Version 25-LS0844\E, Luckhaupt,
2/21/08, as a work draft. [No objection was stated, and Version
E was treated as a work draft before committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered an initial introduction of HJR 19
as prime sponsor. He said since 2005, the issue surrounding the
Real ID Act has become a question of balancing the state's
responsibility to verify people's identification (ID) or the
federal government mandating how the state must do so. He said
he does not support an international ID card. The original Act
passed in an appropriation bill. Currently, it looks like there
will be a division between the federal government and the state.
He said, "If the 'feds' continue going down the road, ... unless
we accept their ID requirements, we can't get into their federal
buildings." He said he does not think the people of America
should be divided up in that manner. He indicated that Article
10 of the Constitution [of the State of Alaska] "requires us to
say we don't think that's the best way to go about it," and that
is the purpose of HJR 19. The resolution tells the federal
government that Alaska is considering the Real ID Act, but may
not implement it exactly as written.
8:44:06 AM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a more in depth explanation of HJR 19 on
behalf of Representative Coghill, prime sponsor. She said, "If
powers aren't delegated to the U.S. Government by the
Constitution, those are reserved to the state and the people."
She said she thinks the term, "the people," is the issue that
Representative Coghill is trying to bring forth.
MS. MOSS explained that the Real ID Act would not punish states
for noncompliance by withdrawing funds, as normal; it would
punish the people of the state by not allowing them access to
airports for travel or to federal facilities. She indicated
that May 2008 is the date by which states must comply with the
Real ID Act, and she reminded the committee that states have had
the administrative authority for drivers' licenses for
approximately 100 years. She summarized that the reason for HJR
19 is that [the Real ID Act] is an unfunded mandate, is contrary
to the Tenth Amendment, and would punish citizens "for the
actions of a government."
8:46:16 AM
BRODY ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska
State Legislature, offered a perspective on HJR 19 on behalf of
Representative Kawasaki, co-sponsor. He stated that [the
Department of] Homeland Security overlooked the consequences
that Alaska and Hawaii would face regarding noncompliance of the
Real ID Act when it related that the Act would not impede
people's travel between states but would simply not allow people
to fly on federally regulated commercial airlines. Without a
Real ID card or passport, people in Alaska would be essentially
landlocked, Mr. Anderson said.
8:47:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked what the impact of the proposed
resolution would be.
8:48:19 AM
MS. MOSS described HJR 19 as "soft ball" compared to resolutions
that have been passed in some other states. In fact, she noted,
many states have passed laws into statute that prohibit the use
of state funds to implement the Real ID Act. Ms. Moss relayed
that the sponsor of the resolution realizes that changes must be
made in response to changing times; however, he wants to get the
message across that the federal government needs to work with
states to make the country safer - not order states under
unfunded mandates to "do things that are contrary to what states
have been doing for 100 years." She recollected when
Representative Coghill first came to the legislature he
introduced a bill that would remove the requirement that people
include their social security numbers on hunting and fishing
licenses. At the time, Representative Coghill was told the
state would lose federal dollars if it passed that legislation.
In researching the bill, she said, Representative Coghill's
office found that two other states had already passed similar
legislation and had lost no federal dollars. Ms. Moss offered
her understanding that Alaska has not lost a single penny
because of that legislation.
8:49:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that extensive hearings had
taken place during the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature
related to the implementation of the Real ID Act. Involved in
those hearings was the then director of the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) who no longer serves in that capacity. He said a
law suit was brought about because "they published a regulation
that implemented the Real ID without any statutory authority
whatsoever." The [law suit] was subsequently dismissed on a
technicality, which Representative Gruenberg said is
unfortunate. He opined that that regulation "is still hanging
out there, ... entirely illegally." He said this is a very
serious liability that the state faces. He offered further
details, and said he assumes the sponsor would not like any of
this additional information added to what he called, "a naked
resolution."
MS. MOSS responded that HJR 19 is geared toward the federal
government and its actions, but she thinks Representative
Gruenberg brought up a good point that needs to be pursued. She
confirmed that the director of DMV, to which Representative
Gruenberg referred, no longer holds that position, and [the fact
that the resolution is still on the books] "should be
corrected."
8:52:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the committee substitute
(CS) for HJR 19, Version 25-LS0844\E, Luckhaupt, 2/21/08, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 19(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
[Later in the hearing further testimony on HJR 19 was heard.]
HJR 38-ISRAEL 60TH ANNIVERSARY
8:52:58 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Recognizing the State of Israel
on the 60th anniversary of its founding.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:53:35 AM to 8:53:54 AM.
8:53:56 AM
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Staff, Representative John Harris, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HJR 38 on behalf of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor. He said May 14, 2008, is
the sixtieth anniversary of the State of Israel. In response to
a question from Representative Gruenberg, he said after talking
to several of Juneau's Jewish community, one of the
recommendations he received was to change "have shared" to
"share" [on page 2, lines 14-15], which would then read as
follows:
WHEREAS the American people share an affinity with the
people of Israel and regard Israel as a strong and
trusted ally;
MR. CLARK, in response to Representative Gruenberg, noted that a
second suggestion had been to add the name of Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to the names of those to whom copies of the
resolution would be sent [page 2, line 29, through page 3, line
1].
8:55:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "have shared"
Insert "share"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:55:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, to add the
name of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the list of those
receiving copies of the resolution. There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:56:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HJR 38, [as amended],
out of committee with individual recommendations [and the
accompanying fiscal notes]. There being no objection, CSHJR
38(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HJR 19-OPPOSE FEDERAL ID REQUIREMENTS
8:56:47 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that although CSHJR 19(STA) had
already been reported out of committee, he had overlooked a
request to testify that had been made by Kevin Brooks, and he
said he would now hear that testimony.
8:57:05 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
outlined the work that has been going on in the department in
relation to the Real ID Act.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:57:33 AM to 8:58:28 AM.
8:58:30 AM
MR. BROOKS said he does not dispute the passage of HJR 19,
because the department has "some very strong concerns about Real
ID, as well." Regarding the aforementioned regulations, he said
they are written out in nearly 200 pages of rules. Some of
those rules are good, he said, and some Alaska is already
following. The concern is that there is an unfunded mandate
placed upon the state, and the department is attempting to
determine the cost to the state for compliance.
MR. BROOKS said the State of Alaska, along with 44 other states,
has applied for and received an extension to December 2009. He
said that does not commit the state to complying at the end of
that extension, but gives the state time to "analyze those rules
and see how they would impact us." Mr. Brooks stated, "There
are things that the state does that arguably are in compliance
with the Real ID Act, but they don't make us compliant, if that
distinction is clear."
MR. BROOKS mentioned the National Governors' Association and
working with other states in terms of trying to be responsible
in the state's approach to this matter while preserving the
rights of Alaska's citizens. He confirmed the problem that
Alaska and Hawaii would have in relation to complying with the
Real ID Act and attempting to fly out of state.
MR. BROOKS stated for the record that the department passed
regulations a couple years ago, but those regulations did not
implement the Real ID Act. He said, "We're not compliant today;
we weren't when they passed the regulations." The regulations
that passed, he noted, were the result of about a two-year
effort to update the DMV regulations, which had not been updated
for over a decade. There were numerous references to the
Division of Motor Vehicles when it existed in the Department of
Public Safety, for example. The regulations that the department
passed reflected that the DMV was now in the Department of
Administration, and those regulations updated the division's
rules with current statute - not with any prospective statute
that had yet to pass. Regarding the reference to the former DMV
director, Mr. Brooks clarified, "There was no relationship with
his no longer working for us in the passage of those
regulations." Mr. Brooks said the department believes that the
regulations were the result of a good work effort by a lot of
people and comprehensive legal review, and they withstood the
test of a lawsuit. He said the department stands by those
regulations today.
9:02:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked:
Is it not true that they did not reach the issue of
the legality of the regulations in that lawsuit; that
they dismissed it, because the main plaintiff didn't
have standing?
MR. BROOKS responded that that is an accurate statement.
[Earlier in the meeting, CSHJR 19(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.]
9:03:00 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES made an announcement pertaining to the calendar
for the next committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:03:17 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|