02/03/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB42 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2009
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 42
"An Act establishing the Legislative Study Group on the
Establishment of an Immediate Online Political Campaign
Reporting System; and directing the study group to prepare a
report on the possibility of creating an immediate, online state
political campaign reporting system."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 42
SHORT TITLE: LEG STUDY GROUP:ONLINE CAMPAIGN REPORTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, FIN
01/29/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/29/09 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
02/03/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PATTY WARE
Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
42.
MICHAEL SICA, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 42, on
behalf of Representative Lynn, prime sponsor.
CRAIG FISHER, CEO
PangoMedia, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 42.
ANDY ROGERS, President/CEO
PangoMedia, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 42.
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director
APOC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
42.
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director
APOC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
42.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:08:15 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives Johnson, Wilson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
8:09:12 AM
HB 42-LEG STUDY GROUP:ONLINE CAMPAIGN REPORTING
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 42, "An Act establishing the Legislative Study Group on
the Establishment of an Immediate Online Political Campaign
Reporting System; and directing the study group to prepare a
report on the possibility of creating an immediate, online state
political campaign reporting system."
8:09:35 AM
CHAIR LYNN explained that there is a committee substitute in the
committee packet which would make a single change to HB 42,
which is to specify that the chair of the study group be a
legislative member.
8:09:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 42, Version 26-LS0226\E, Bullard, 2/2/09, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
8:10:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN introduced HB 42 as prime sponsor. He said HB 42
would establish a study group that would determine the
feasibility of establishing an online campaign banking and
reporting system that would instantly make campaign
contributions and expenditures visible to the world. He
credited the idea for the bill to the late Father Tom Moffatt,
his first chief of staff. He said he has informally discussed
the idea with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and
others, beginning with his first involvement with the House
State Affairs Standing Committee in 2003, and now, with the
advances in Internet technology and banking software, he
believes the gap between the vision and the reality of making
instant reporting possible has narrowed significantly.
CHAIR LYNN said current reporting only presents a campaign
disclosure "snapshot," which is only accurate on the date of the
report, and dishonest candidates are able to hide information.
He explained that contributions from "controversial people" or
political action committees (PACs) can be deposited right after
a report due date to delay political repercussions until the
next report. Furthermore, candidates can delay large media buys
until immediately after a due date, thereby keeping opponents in
the dark about an "upcoming television onslaught." Another
tactic is to scribble handwritten campaign reports and mail them
to the state before midnight on the due date, which makes the
report on time but delays transcription of the report to the
Internet. Such tactics can hinder Alaskans from getting the
campaign transparency they deserve in a timely manner, Chair
Lynn said, which defeats the purpose of a campaign disclosure.
The advent of "early voting" amplifies the need for instant
reporting, he remarked.
8:13:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the online reporting system that the study group
would consider would be similar to the system currently in use
by individuals with their own accounts, accept that anyone in
the world could see the information without a password.
Campaign contributions would show up immediately when deposited,
while campaign expenditures would be displayed on the Internet
as soon as the vendor cashed the campaign expenditure check, he
said. Instant, online campaign banking could be implemented
through a bid process from Alaska banks to perform the service
for a fee to be paid by the state, the candidate, or both.
Another option, he suggested, could be for software to be made
available to an Alaska bank of the candidate's choosing. Yet
another choice could be for banks to develop their own software,
modified from the online banking software currently in use.
CHAIR LYNN said in order to conform to current requirements,
instant, online reporting would need to display names,
addresses, occupations, and employers of campaign contributors,
and would need to show "who receives what" in campaign
expenditures.
CHAIR LYNN asked the committee not to overcomplicate the bill.
He reminded committee members that there is no need to figure
out how everything would work, because the study group proposed
by the bill would do that. The major questions to be answered
by the study group proposed by HB 42 are there, he said.
CHAIR LYNN said there are three questions to be posed by HB 42:
Would instant campaign reporting be good public policy? Is
instant campaign reporting technically feasible? Is Instant
campaign disclosure financially feasible? The task of the
committee is to decide whether it is a good idea for a study
group to consider those questions. Chair Lynn concluded by
noting that Alaska would be the first state in the nation to
adopt instant, online reporting. He encouraged the committee to
"let Alaska lead the way for the rest of the country."
8:16:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his support of the instant
reporting of income, but said there are too many ways that
instant reporting of expenses could be problematic. For
example, he noted that the print shop he used for his campaign
did not submit its bill until the day after the election. He
indicated that it is his business to strategize how he spends
his campaign money, but the public has a right to know who is
financing his campaign. He offered a further example.
8:20:11 AM
PATTY WARE, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Juneau, Alaska, in response to Chair Lynn,
said under the current system, a candidate reports the name of
the person or entity whom he/she paid. For example, if an
expenditure is paid out to a television station or a large
public media "buy," that is what would be listed on the campaign
report. In response to a follow-up question from Chair Lynn,
she confirmed that the reporting is not broken down further than
that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded, "If we have to make
advertising agencies report to APOC every penny they spend on an
ad, you're going to probably find an opponent to this type of
legislation."
CHAIR LYNN said the bill does not entertain that requirement; it
simply proposes that a study group form to decide what should
and should not be included in instant reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that if [instant reporting] is a
good policy, then the legislature should make it happen through
the committee process; a study group is not necessary.
MICHAEL SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Lynn, prime
sponsor, said he understands what Representative Johnson is
saying. He said he thinks the intent of the sponsor is for the
proposed study group to bring back a recommendation to the
legislature, at which point, the legislature would go through
its critical process of decision making.
8:24:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said most legislators are on the road most
of the time; therefore, campaign checks mailed to the home base
may not be deposited for three weeks. She said the bill would
create a situation in which only those legislators who can get
home each night would be reporting contributions instantly.
Furthermore, she noted that in Wrangell there is no printing
service, so she cannot even order signs locally.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that with or without this legislation, a
campaign check has to be deposited as soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated her concern about the issue of
fairness and how the bill may end up affecting those who cannot
get home each night versus those who can.
CHAIR LYNN said, "It would still be more rapid than the way we
do it today on paper."
8:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he sees Representative Wilson's
point. He said if the requirement is made to report campaign
finance instantly and a candidate is in remote Alaska, he/she
may be forced to hire a treasurer to ensure the reports are made
[instantly], and that would make campaigns more expensive.
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks this legislation could "lessen the
hurdle," because the candidate or his/her volunteer could just
go to the bank and make a deposit and the deposit would show up
on an online banking account for the public's viewing.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Chair Lynn to confirm that he is
proposing a program that would have access to a candidate's
campaign banking account number so that as soon as a campaign
deposit is made at the bank, that information would be
immediately listed online.
CHAIR LYNN indicated that is his intent. He clarified that the
public would not be able to make changes online because the
information would be "read only."
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said it would be tempting for some
people who are computer savvy to hack into the information.
8:33:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that past legislation
designed to set up study groups was introduced in the form of a
concurrent resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that that is his understanding.
CHAIR LYNN cautioned against overcomplicating the process.
8:35:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she does not think [full disclosure]
will occur simply by instantly reporting a bank deposit, because
a deposit does not specify how many checks are in it or the
source of those checks. She said online banking and reporting
are two different things.
CHAIR LYNN related that when he gets five campaign checks, he
makes five deposits.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded, "I would go crazy if I had to
do that."
MR. SICA clarified that the idea of the sponsor is not that a
check must be instantly deposited, but that once it is
deposited, it would be instantly reported to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he includes multiple checks in one
deposit, and there is nowhere in a bank account where a person
has copies of the checks he/she deposited.
CHAIR LYNN said he makes copies of his checks.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he does also, but noted that that
copy would not be available to the public online. In response
to Chair Lynn, he said in theory, the bank runs each check
through a machine.
CHAIR LYNN said that is the type of thing a study group could
figure out. He added his wish to have a representative from the
banking community serve on the proposed study group.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked, "I would certainly like to hear
from someone from the bank, because I think we're asking them to
change the way they do business." He added that he thinks that
would be expensive.
MR. SICA suggested that Ms. Ware explain to the committee how
checks are currently handled.
8:38:41 AM
MS. WARE revealed to the committee that APOC is already in the
midst of development of an online, electronic reporting system.
The online, electronic reporting for lobbyists and employers of
lobbyists was deployed in February of 2008. The current
contractor is also responsible for building online reporting for
public official financial disclosure, as well as for campaign
disclosure, she noted. The latter disclosure, she relayed, is
not slated to be deployed until sometime in 2010. Regarding the
detailed and complex questions the committee has regarding a
deposit slip comprising multiple text, for example, she said
were the bill to pass and the study group tackle some of these
issues, that group may wish to consider the interface between
any kind of online banking system and the existing forms that
"you all" are all ready required to fill out by APOC.
MS. WARE said APOC appreciates that the proposed legislation
designates that an APOC representative would be a member of the
study group; however, she said APOC would want to ensure that
the study group learned from the lessons APOC has learned
through its experience thus far in regard to the lobbyist
reporting system. She stated that APOC is committed to working
with the legislature if HB 42 is passed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she already gives APOC
information on each check deposited, including the name on the
check and who the person's employer is; therefore, she said she
does not know if this bill is necessary.
8:42:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he can see how having more and more
reporting done electronically would be convenient for APOC,
because reading long hand can be a nightmare. However, he said
at this point he still needs some questions answered.
8:43:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Ware, "Is this something that
APOC could undertake without legislation?"
MS. WARE responded by reiterating that APOC is already in the
midst of working toward online reporting. She noted that
currently, the electronic filing system for lobbyists and
employers is not available to the public. She said APOC has not
yet reached Chair Lynn's dream of immediate accessibility, but
is working toward it.
8:45:06 AM
CRAIG FISHER, CEO, PangoMedia, Inc., told the committee that he
became involved in software engineering for approximately 15
years. He addressed the three key questions outlined by Chair
Lynn during his presentation of the bill. Regarding the first
question, whether [instant reporting] is good for the state, he
said as a citizen he supports increased transparency [in
politics]. Furthermore, he said more rapid response, in terms
of who is financing what, seems even more important in an age
when early voting is become more popular.
MR. FISHER, regarding whether instant, online reporting is
technically feasible, said he is fairly certain that it is. To
the question of whether or not it is financially feasible, he
said that is a more difficult question to answer. He said part
of his work involves figuring out how much money it will take to
do a project early on in that project, and he said "this doesn't
seem like an incredibly complicated project." He agreed that
there would be a challenge regarding security, and he said it is
wise to include bank representatives in the proposed study
group.
MR. FISHER, in response to a question from Representative
Wilson, said it would be incredibly difficult at this point to
give even a rough estimate of what the necessary software would
cost the state. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Wilson, he said he does not need to know how much
someone has available to spend in order to tell him/her how much
something will cost. He offered an example.
8:53:07 AM
ANDY ROGERS, President/CEO, PangoMedia, Inc., read from a
prepared statement as follows:
Immediate, online availability of campaign finance
information will be a fantastic resource for voters.
It will provide what I see as a necessary level of
transparency into the electoral process that is sorely
missing today. As a born and raised Alaskan father,
husband, employer, and voter, I am excited that our
state's legislators would consider leading the country
in this effort.
... As a software professional, I am well-qualified to
speak to the probable success and the likely pitfalls
associated with this initiative. I can plainly say
that the technology does exist to make this a reality.
We need only to align the interests of policy makers,
potential candidates, banking institutions, voters,
and current regulatory bodies. ... That may seem like
no small task and it's probably not; however, the
common threads of campaign ethics [and] contribution
transparency must drive the interests of all ...
stakeholders toward a simple, universal system that
provides immediate and complete access to all Alaskan
voters.
What then remains is to let talented professionals
define the security and the technical measures
necessary to protect sensitive account information,
... [and] to identify the appropriate steward of the
system, be it the state, one or more of the banking
institutions, or perhaps even another third-party
vendor.
... It seems almost nonsensical to ask, "Should we do
this?" The only real question is, "How should we do
this?" ... More importantly, the potential
constituencies of all candidates will have a necessary
insight into detailed, complete contribution
information, without an increase in load and burden on
the candidates themselves, and they will have it
before they enter a voting booth.
MR. ROGERS thanked Chair Lynn for championing the cause of
increased transparency in government. He said as a voter he
likes to see that kind of interest in his elected officials.
MR. ROGERS, in response to Representative Wilson, said one
question to ask is, "Should we do this?" He said he thinks the
answer is a resounding yes. Two other questions relate to how
this is done and how much it will cost. Mr. Rogers said he does
not think a single answer can be found without identifying the
options available. He stated that banks already employ similar
technology for reporting, and they do it through a narrow window
- they make the information available to the account holder.
The bank itself has the ability to access the account holder's
information. He said it seems conceivable that a more public
view could be provided without revealing certain information.
He suggested that the state would need to leverage the
technology and information that banks have spent decades
developing and base its budgeting from that.
MR. ROGERS suggested that another opportunity may be to access a
vendor such as Quicken, or some other personal finance manager.
He said, "This may be a market opportunity for them to provide a
campaign disclosure sweep of software." Some of the costs could
be transferred to that company, in terms of developing a new
product, and the company could market the product to all states;
therefore, the absolutely cost of the project may slide one way
or the other, but would not be borne entirely by the state.
8:59:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if a university class could
develop software like this as a project and then sell it to
other states and make money on it, rather than the state
spending money to develop the program through a private company.
MR. ROGERS responded that that is the kind of idea he would like
to see considered by the proposed study group. He said his
company works closely with the University of Alaska - Anchorage
(UAA). He talked about the good work of interns from UAA at his
company, but suggested that the level of experience necessary to
do a project quickly and provide project management may not be
found at the university level, but perhaps through a partnership
between university students and a vendor.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN talked about the need for a copyright.
9:03:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said when he served in the legislature
in the 1980s there was a special committee that considered
technology. He said this proposed bill is a "foot in the door"
to the state's taking advantage of and developing the latest
technological concepts, and he suggested it might behoove the
legislature to form a special committee on technology once more.
CHAIR LYNN said that is an excellent idea, but outside the scope
of the bill.
9:05:38 AM
MS. WARE, in response to a question from Representative Wilson,
said she hopes that the aforementioned work of APOC will be
completed by the time the proposed study group sunsets on
February 8, 2011. She spoke again about the various modules:
lobbyist, public official, and campaign disclosure reporting.
She said the reason the campaign module is last on the list is
because it is the most complicated; there are more forms,
multiple deadlines, and the campaign disclosure law covers not
only state legislative campaigns, but also municipal candidates.
Ms. Ware stated that there are a number of complexities involved
in the process that APOC has been undertaking in the last couple
of years as it has started on the road to electronic reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the money has already been
allocated.
MS. WARE responded that APOC has funding for phase two of the
lobbyist module. She said APOC has some funding available for
fiscal year 2010 (FY 10), but she said it is probably
insufficient to complete everything on the list.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she cannot imagine that the banking
system in its current makeup would be willing to "do something
like this." She asked, "So, you're able to do this without
having to go through a bank?"
MS. WARE answered that is correct. In terms of immediate
accessibility to the public, the plan is to have a number of
reporting capabilities so that the public can "press a button
and see various pieces of information." She said that is a
critical part of the system in regarding to transparency and
disclosure to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that currently she does all her
[reporting] electronically. She asked if what she does now is
what APOC would soon require of everyone.
MS. WARE clarified that when Representative Wilson talks about
reporting "electronically" she is talking about using Excel
spreadsheets. She explained that that system would no longer be
used. She said the candidates would fill out forms in their
accounts, which would be immediately available for their own
review, and the forms would be certified and legally signed.
9:10:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned what kind of liability the
state would have if it forced banks to "take this system" and
"open their doors to us" and someone [hacked] into [the system].
He expressed concern that the state may be liable for millions
of dollars if that happened. Because of that concern, he said
he thinks the proposed legislation should be heard by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR LYNN responded that there is nothing in the proposed bill
that contemplates forcing a bank to do anything.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if he would be forced to change
banks if the bank he currently goes to does not want to
accommodate a new system.
CHAIR LYNN said, "Well, I would suppose, but it's just more
business for the bank. Right now we choose the bank we want to
go to."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON observed that the bill does direct the
study group to consider the technology of specific banks. He
said, "If we pass this law, we would be forcing the bank to do
it, or forcing every candidate to go to the one bank." He said
Representative Wilson, for example, may not have the required
bank branch in Wrangell, Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN said that is the type of question that the study
group would need to solve.
9:15:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to the language on
page 3, lines 1-2, which proposes that [the study group prepare
a report] that "reviews how the technologies employed in
existing online banking systems that are used by individuals and
businesses to monitor financial transactions". He said the
language is very specifically instructing the study of online
banking and does not explore other options. He suggested that
if there is going to be a study group, it should not be limited
in what it considers. He mentioned NetFile, an instant
reporting company, as an example of another option that should
not be excluded.
CHAIR LYNN said he would not be opposed to an amendment to
include "or other entity."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that rather than adding
language, he would suggest striking the aforementioned language
to encourage all options.
9:17:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned Title 6, regarding banking,
and highly regulated federal banking laws, and he said he thinks
that if some entity is "charged with doing this," it definitely
needs to work with those resources. He suggested that the House
State Affairs Standing Committee is equipped to deal with these
issues.
9:20:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN, regarding banks, surmised that if there
would be any additional expense the bank incurred in order to
accept campaign accounts, it would start charging larger bank
fees to political candidates. He posited that that would just
be another hurdle that a candidate would have to clear in order
to keep his/her campaign in motion. He said he thinks some
banks may be hesitant to allow candidates to open political
accounts if they had to buy additional software or face
additional administrative costs.
CHAIR LYNN said [costs] could be paid by the candidate, the
state, the bank, or "by some combination of the three." He
reiterated that it would be a business opportunity for the bank.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN responded, "Right, but it's a business
opportunity that they would be charging fees for."
CHAIR LYNN commented that banks currently charge fees.
9:22:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that she likes the end goal of
the bill, but wants to check to see if this legislation should
be proposed as a resolution. Furthermore, she opined that if
possible to do another way, the banks should not even be
involved. She clarified that banks are not involved in current
campaign disclosures other than in holding a candidate's money.
Candidates report to APOC currently, which has nothing to do
with the bank. Representative Wilson added, "And I think we
should keep it that way." She indicated that she would like to
know if what APOC has "in the works" accomplishes the goal of
the bill or not. When those questions are answered, the bill
could be brought back to the committee; it is not ready now, she
stated.
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that his concept is to have a study group
work this out with APOC and other entities.
9:24:39 AM
MR. SICA relayed that he thinks that not limiting this to online
banking technology is a good idea. He said he loves APOC's
confidence regarding its related project; however, he thinks
things don't work out always as planned. He suggested that the
committee should not discount online banking. Mr. Sica noted
that a bank executive with whom he spoke seemed excited over the
idea of merging online banking technology into online reporting;
Alaska could lead the way in this regard. He said banks are not
just in the business of making money, but also into bringing in
more customers. He concluded, "As long as we're just not
totally redundant with what APOC's already doing, a study group
with a fiscal note of $4,000 is not a waste of money."
9:26:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he did not realize the fiscal note
is $4,000.
MR. SICA, in response to a question from Representative
Peterson, said the bill would provide two years for the study
group. After one year, there would be an interim progress
report. After the second year, recommendations would be made.
9:27:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that one way campaigns are
changing is through the increasing use of credit cards for
contributions. He questioned how "this concept" would be
affected through the use of credit cards.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she uses a credit card. She offered
her understanding that within 24 hours, she has to "write the
check to cover that for the credit card company."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Representative Wilson is talking
about credit card expenditure, while he was talking about credit
cards used for contribution. He asked which legislators in the
room have [been given contribution via credit cards]. He noted
that Representatives Johnson and Petersen raised their hands.
9:28:58 AM
MS. WARE said she cannot answer Representative Gruenberg's
concern specifically, but she noted that the lobbying electronic
filing system has a credit card component, in the sense that
lobbyists have to pay a registration fee, and most of them want
to do so electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about being careful with privacy
issues, and he spoke of the threat from hackers. He directed
attention to the language on page 3, and said he hopes the study
group would be particularly sensitive to protecting the privacy
not only of the candidates, but also of the contributors and the
vendors to whom they pay. In response to Chair Lynn, he
clarified that currently a candidate does not transmit
information electronically that reveals the bank account number
- just the check number. He said he does not know how this
would work, but is concerned about the issue of privacy.
CHAIR LYNN said it is nobody's business what his campaign bank
account number is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that if Chair
Lynn were to make an electronic deposit, he would have to let
the bank know the routing and checking account numbers.
CHAIR LYNN said a campaign contribution check would still be
deposited as it is today; that is not done electronically.
9:36:08 AM
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director, APOC, in response to
Representative Wilson, said currently there is a 30-day, 7-day,
and 24-hour reporting cycle designed around the election cycle,
but there is nothing that would prohibit reporting in a
different time period so that the information would be available
instantaneously during that cycle.
9:37:14 AM
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director, APOC, in response to a question
from Representative Wilson regarding APOC's financial position,
said the agency currently has a request in the governor's budget
for an appropriation of $175,000 to finish its electronic filing
project. Currently, she said, the project is in the lobbyist
phase, and scheduled for 2010 is the remaining work on the
public official financial disclosure, the legislative financial
disclosure, and the campaign disclosure. In response to a
follow-up question, she offered her understanding that the
request for the funds has already been made, and it will be
heard by the legislative body.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for confirmation that "it is in the
governor's budget."
[MS. WARE nodded.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he and Representative
Johnson serve on the House Finance Committee's subcommittee
dealing with the Department of Administration, and he expressed
his wish that APOC report to that subcommittee so that it can
"follow up what's happening here."
9:39:00 AM
MS. ELLINGSON, in response to a question from Representative
Petersen, said the only way the aforementioned 30-day, 7-day,
and 24-hour deadlines would disappear would be if the
legislature changed the law, because currently those are
statutory requirements.
CHAIR LYNN confirmed that's correct. He added that that would
be something for the Twenty-Seventh Alaska State Legislature to
consider.
9:40:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that another option that would
be as unpalatable as involving a bank would be to require each
contributor to file that contribution with APOC.
CHAIR LYNN asked the committee to think about questions they
would like addressed before the next hearing on the bill.
9:42:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated his desire to have the
language at the top of page 3 of Version E replaced with less
restrictive language.
9:43:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he applauds the basic premise of
proposed legislation.
9:44:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she finds it difficult to support the
formation of a study group, when [APOC] is already doing the
work.
9:44:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred back to the topic of whether
or not the bill should be a resolution. He cited Uniform Rule
49, subsection (a), paragraph (3), which read as follows:
(3) A concurrent resolution is similar to the simple
resolution but reflects the will, wish, view or
decision of both houses speaking concurrently. It is
used particularly to handle the internal business of
the legislature, e.g., adjournment of the legislature,
suspension and amendment of the Uniform Rules,
requesting action of executive agencies and interim
committees, and fixing the time and place for joint
assemblies. This resolution is also used for
establishing joint committees. This resolution does
not require committee referral, three readings, or
anything other than approval of a majority vote of the
full membership of each house unless otherwise
required by the rules.
CHAIR LYNN said his staff will investigate that before the next
hearing on the bill.
9:46:07 AM
[HB 42 was held over.]
9:46:23 AM
[Following is a discussion regarding the upcoming calendar and
the subject of addressing legislation with subcommittees.]
9:49:52 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:49
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HSTA - CS for HB42 Version E.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 42 |
| HSTA - HB 42 APOC Campaign Forms.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 42 |
| HSTA - HB 42 News Reports, Artilces for STA.PDF |
HSTA 2/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 42 |
| HSTA - HB 42 Research, Background for STA.PDF |
HSTA 2/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 42 |
| HSTA - HB42-LEG-COU-2-2-09.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 42 |