04/04/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB158 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB163 | |
| HJR3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2017
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to the location of offices for the Alaska
Public Offices Commission and the locations at which certain
statements and reports filed with the commission are made
available."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act relating to the presentation of oral comments on the
proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act authorizing the Department of Public Safety to enter
into agreements with nonprofit regional corporations and
federal, tribal, and local government agencies to provide law
enforcement services; authorizing the Department of Public
Safety to collect fees for certain law enforcement services; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of regular sessions of the legislature.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to hiring for positions in state service based
on substitution of military work experience or training for
civilian work experience or training requirements."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: APOC OFFICE LOCATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EASTMAN
03/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/17 (H) STA, FIN
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 190
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
03/22/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/17 (H) STA
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: DPS LAW ENFORCE. SVCS: AGREEMENTS/FEES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (H) STA, FIN
03/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: 90 DAY REGULAR SESSION
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 158, as prime sponsor.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 188.
JULIE MORRIS, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 190 on behalf of Representative Talerico, prime
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
190, as prime sponsor.
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Legislation & Regulations Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
190.
SARA CHAMBERS, Operations Manager
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
(CBPL)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
190.
PAMELA SAMASH
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 190.
WALT MONEGAN, Commissioner Designee
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 163, labeled Version 30-GH1811/D, Martin, 3/30/17.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 3, as prime sponsor.
SARA PERMAN, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 3 on behalf of Representative
Claman, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:30 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
Representatives Tuck, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representatives LeDoux and
Wool arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 158-APOC OFFICE LOCATIONS
3:06:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act relating to the location of
offices for the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the
locations at which certain statements and reports filed with the
commission are made available."
3:07:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 158, as prime sponsor. He relayed that under
current state statute, the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC) is required to have physical office locations in each
Senate district in the state and to have a central office. He
stated that APOC is required to make available paper copies of
all filings made to the commission at each of these locations as
well as at the Office of Lieutenant Governor (OLG) and at the
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) reference library. He
mentioned that there are about 13 offices for which APOC is
required to provide paper copies of the filings. He asserted
that the statute is outdated: there is no mention of accessing
the filings through a website or submitting online reports.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that HB 158 would reduce the
statutory burden on APOC: APOC would no longer be required to
have physical office locations in each Senate district; it only
would be required to maintain one central office with physical
copies of filings available to the public; and it would provide
information through the APOC website and receive filings online,
which is already occurring. He added that HB 181 would not
require any APOC policy change but would give APOC the statutory
permission to do what it is already doing in an "internet age."
3:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked, "Do we have an APOC office in all 20
Senate districts currently?"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied, "Currently we do not." He
explained that APOC currently is not following state statute
regarding this requirement, and it maintains that it lacks the
funds to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for the location of APOC offices.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that APOC has an office in
Anchorage and a smaller one in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the proposed legislation only
would remove statutory language; there would be no functional
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP answered that the functional changes are
that APOC neither would be required to have offices in every
Senate district nor be required to offer access to physical
documents at the OLG and LAA locations. He stated that the
documents would be handled at a central office designated by
APOC. He added that there would be no requirement that APOC
close offices, but the requirement for the [additional] offices
would be eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to Section 1(j) of HB 188, which
read, "The commission shall establish a central office". He
asked for clarification of the intent of HB 188: that the
central office has been established already, that the Anchorage
office will be considered the central office, or APOC will
establish a central office.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that his intent is for APOC to
determine which office will be the central office.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if APOC currently is violating state
statute by not having an office in each Senate district.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered, "That is correct."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the intent of the proposed
legislation is both to "clean up" statutes that don't represent
practices and to enact a functional change "bringing the
statutes into the twenty-first century" and acknowledging the
possibility of digitizing records.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded, "Absolutely." He added that
HB 188 would set the following priorities: ensuring that there
is a website; ensuring it is functional; and allowing candidates
and groups to use the website in place of the expectation of
many district offices.
3:13:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the zero-fiscal note and
suggested that if offices will be closed, the fiscal note should
be negative.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that if there were a dozen
offices across the state, there would be a negative fiscal-note;
however, since the budget has not allowed for those offices,
there would be no savings due to office closures.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the number of APOC offices.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that he only is aware of the
office in Anchorage and a satellite office in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if under HB 188, one of the two
offices would be closed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that under HB 188, it would not
be required that one of the offices close; the requirement would
be that only one office is required and APOC must establish a
central office. He added that APOC could choose to have three
offices. He conjectured that later APOC could decide it has the
resources for 20 offices, but he opined that possibility is not
likely.
3:14:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL summarized as follows: the statute
currently requires one office in each of 20 Senate districts;
APOC has not been abiding by the statute as it has two Senate
district offices - one in Anchorage and one in Juneau; the
proposed legislation would change the statutory requirement to
one office, which would allow APOC to close the Juneau office;
there would be one centralized statewide office; and all other
transmittals would be electronic. He asked if the proposed
legislation requires one office, or if APOC could maintain the
office in Juneau, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the statute currently
requires APOC to have between 12 and 20 offices. There is an
exemption for a large municipality such as Anchorage, which has
multiple Senate districts; Anchorage is not required to have an
office in each of its Senate districts but must have one
Anchorage office. He said that under HB 188, there would be an
expectation of one or more offices rather than an expectation of
13 or more offices. He stated that the decision to maintain a
Juneau office would be at the discretion of APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Representative Eastman to indicate
where the language "one or more office" is in HB 188.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the requirement for
maintaining a central office is on page 1, line 6, of HB 188.
He added that the proposed legislation does not preclude APOC
from having satellite offices.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL specified that the proposed legislation
states that APOC shall establish a central office. He suggested
that the future of the Juneau office remains a question. He
added that the Juneau office could be named the central office
and, therefore, the Anchorage office would be in question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN relayed that whichever office was not the
central office would always be in question, and it would be for
APOC to decide [if it should remain open]. He said that the
requirement under HB 188 is to have at least one office and a
website.
3:17:46 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that if passed, HB 188 would have very
little impact for APOC; it would align the statutes with current
practice. She mentioned that it has been a long time since APOC
has had more than two offices.
3:18:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if all transmittals to and from APOC
are electronic.
MS. HEBDON relayed that there are a few paper filings received
from the smaller municipalities; however, they are scanned to a
Portable Document Format (PDF) and are available on the APOC
website. She said that those documents are data-entered into
the online filing system; therefore, the majority, if not all,
of the reports are available through the website and on the
online system.
3:19:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how many people work in the Anchorage
and Juneau offices, respectively.
MS. HEBDON responded that the Anchorage office has five full-
time employees and the Juneau office has one full-time employee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 188 was held over.
HB 190-REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT
3:20:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to the
presentation of oral comments on the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of regulations."
3:21:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP, after ascertaining the correct document
for the motion, moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 190, Version 30-LS0732\J, Bannister, 3/31/17, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version J was
before the committee.
3:22:38 PM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Talerico, prime sponsor
of HB 190, reviewed the document included in the committee
packet entitled "Explanation of Changes to HB 190 Version A to
Version J," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 1 AS 44.62.190(a)(1) deletes newspaper from a
requirement of publication., and includes the Internet
address of the state Agency's Internet website.
Sec. 2 AS 44.62.200 (d) deletes the newspaper
requirement.
Sec. 3 AS 44.62.210(a) deleted language (when
requested by the person or the person's authorized
representative).
Sec. 4 AS 44.62.245 (b)(2) amends post to the agency's
Internet website and deletes requirement in newspaper
of general circulation.
Sec. AS.21.123 (b) repealed the oral requirement in
this statute since it will be covered now in Section
3.
Sec. 6 Applicability applies to regulations amended,
adoption [sic] or repealed on or after effective date.
3:25:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to the fiscal note and asked what
savings would be realized by eliminating the requirement for
publishing [a proposed action to adopt, amend, or repeal a
regulation] in a newspaper.
MS. MORRIS explained that the fiscal note, included in the
committee packet, was drafted for Version A. She stated that
the publication requirements, both in newspaper and trade and
industry publications, and any potential savings under Version J
are still in discussion.
3:26:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked, "At whose request are we removing
the newspaper component?"
MS. MORRIS responded that the discussion of the cost of
publications occurred during meetings with "the chairman and his
staff," the Department of Law (DOL), and the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). She
stated that the public can post written comments to the website
for online public notices; however, depending on the agency,
oral testimony is not always allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that he is not as technology
("tech") savvy as some people and still relies on the newspaper
to be alerted to proposed regulation changes. He added that he
consults the website after seeing notice in the newspaper. He
stated that he has an issue with excluding newspaper publication
[of proposed regulation changes].
3:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there has been consideration for
a consistent standard throughout the [Alaska Administrative]
Code (AAC) for notification procedures and information sharing.
MS. MORRIS answered that in the proposed legislation, the
consideration has been for allowing the public the opportunity
to give oral comment. She maintained that the elimination of a
newspaper publication for public notification is secondary. She
conceded that many people still do rely on newspapers for
information instead of electronic devices. She emphasized that
there is a need to "get the word out" on how regulations are
being amended and changed. She asserted that she does not want
to create more bureaucracy but wants to streamline the process
and allow oral testimony. She maintained that doing so would
neither slow the process down nor cost more money.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed that there are many people relying
on the newspaper for notices. She expressed a need for bridging
the gap between those individuals and tech savvy people by
making the information available both in newspapers and online.
She suggested that the requirement for newspaper publication be
retained and the language for the information technology (IT)
piece be added to the statute until the state attains
consistency regarding its public notices. She lamented that
currently there is no standardization in that regard.
3:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that in Version A, oral testimony
would have been allowed in addition to written testimony. He
added that oral testimony is less formal than written testimony
and undocumented. He asked if it was the intent of the original
version of HB 190 to allow the less formal testimony.
3:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 190, responded, "That was the intention." He
referred to the 129 boards and commissions in Alaska to point
out that not all of them adopt, amend, or repeal regulations.
He gave two examples of groups which make recommendations but
have no regulatory authority: the Alaska Minerals Commission
(AMC) and the Alaska Safety Advisory Council (ASAC). He offered
that the Alaska Board of Architects and Engineers is one board
that does have regulatory authority. He concluded that under
the proposed legislation, oral testimony would be available for
those boards and commissions that do have regulatory authority,
but not for those that do not.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if under Version J, a specialist, such
as a geologist or an optometrist, who would be directly impacted
by the proposed regulatory change, would be notified of it or
would have to "find it."
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered, "That's probably the big
question." He said that the changes in Version J are up for
discussion. He expressed his belief that "our future is
probably more electronic"; the discussion on procedures for
notification is an important one going forward; and he conceded
that many older people rely on the newspaper and many young
people rely on electronic devices.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he reads online newspapers
and is more apt to do that than visiting board websites or the
Alaska Online Public Notice System. He offered his
understanding that similar legislation was proposed by the
committee chair allowing state agencies to put publications
online rather than producing paper copies. He offered that he
is more likely to read something that comes to his mailbox than
to navigate to a website to obtain information.
3:38:26 PM
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil
Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), testified that one
of her job duties is to advise agencies on how to comply with
the administrative procedures while proceeding through the steps
for adopting regulations. She stated that the Alaska Online
Public Notice System is one of the available tools for receiving
notice of state agency actions. She asserted that the system
was not maintained by DOL but by the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor (OLG). She mentioned that the notice of proposed
regulation change or public hearing by an agency, board, or
commission must be posted on the system.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what the cost differential was
between a published advertisement in a newspaper and an online
advertisement.
3:40:30 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Operations Manager, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (CBPL), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), responded
that CBPL represents 21 boards and commissions and 22 licensing
programs; all 43 entities have regulatory authority. She
explained that CBPL posts proposed regulation changes on the
Alaska Online Public Notice System; it sends notices to anyone
on the interested parties list; and it sends notices to
licensees who will be impacted by a regulation change, such as
through a fee increase or an increase in the cost of continuing
education. She added that CBPL always publishes notice in the
newspaper. By statute it must be a newspaper with major
circulation; therefore, CBPL chooses to publish in the largest
newspaper in the state. She said that the cost of publishing a
newspaper notice is typically a couple hundred dollars per
notice; one project may require as many as four notices
depending on the number of changes to the project and
supplemental notices. She maintained that the potential savings
to the licensees through the elimination of the requirement for
a hard copy publication of notice - including a trade or
industry publication notice - would be substantial. She added
that it is the licensees who support CBPL; the division does not
receive any state general funds (GF).
3:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there is any legal reason for
advertising in print media, or if online notification alone
would be allowed.
MS. POLLARD answered that the notice of proposed regulation
changes is designed to reach interested parties and any person
who potentially could be affected by the regulatory action. She
stated that when the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was
adopted [in 1959], newspapers were the best method of providing
general notice. She offered that there is probably no legal
requirement for notification in print media, but she suggested
that the question is: What is the best way to reach a diverse
group? She said that the court has looked at whether a
newspaper meets that standard, and she added that her agency
could consider that further.
3:44:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that when he served at the
municipal level, the assembly had to give notice of meeting
agendas. He maintained that there was only one newspaper with
general circulation; therefore, the rates were "out of control."
He stated that to control cost, the assembly responded by giving
as notice of meetings the date, time, and reference to a
website. This reduced the advertisement from a half page down
to a couple columns. He suggested that his concern is that the
proposed regulation change be "noticed"; the content of the
change is not necessary in the notification; and he can visit a
website for the "body" of the proposed change. He reiterated
that he avoids searching the internet unless it is a necessity.
He stated that his concern is that electronic media would be the
sole source of notice. He asked if the state has record of the
number of times that the Alaska Online Public Notice System has
been accessed and if there was any measure of the effectiveness
of the system.
MS. POLLARD replied that she did not know.
3:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if notices of proposed regulation
changes are published in the classified section of a trade or
industry publication. She suggested that no one would look in
the classified section for them.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that notifications are published in the
legal notices section. In response to Representative Knopp, she
said that the notifications are condensed to the extent allowed
by statute, the drafting manual, and the APA.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that professionals who are
looking for notification in the legal notices section [of a
trade or industry publication] would look online, if they knew
that was where notice would be published.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that she has discovered that when people
are given the opportunity to select the method of notification -
paper notification or email notification - more and more they
are opting for email. She added that CBPL still publishes
notification in newspapers, because it is required in statute.
She concluded that CBPL posts notification to the Alaska Online
Public Notice System, publishes it in the newspaper, posts it to
its website, and continues to "push out" notification to
licensees when requested.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested the possibility of the proposed
legislation only requiring that public notice [of a proposed
regulation change] be posted online, and only sending it out
through email or mail to people asking to be informed.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that the impact of online-only
notification to CBPL would be savings in time and cost. She
mentioned that she did not know what the impact would be to the
public.
3:50:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested that someone testify on the
impact to the public of her suggested method of notification.
MS. POLLARD replied that each agency, including each board and
commission, would need to "weigh in" on how that would affect
its interested parties. She added that DOL cannot speak for all
executive branch departments; the DOL would assist the agencies
to comply with whatever the legislature decides is the mandatory
notice.
MS. CHAMBER suggested that newspaper publishers may be able to
give the results of studies that they have done on the
readership of legal notices.
3:52:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if the savings realized by
eliminating the publication requirement would be savings to
licensees who currently underwrite the cost of notification
advertising through their license fees.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that for her agency, that is true, but it
is not necessarily true for other agencies with other funding
mechanisms. She added that CBPL does represent a large portion
of the "regulations generators." She offered that the Version J
would retain the requirement for a trade or industry publication
[to publish notification of a proposed regulation change], and
she added that adopting the CS might be like "nailing Jell-O to
a wall."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that Version J has been adopted
by the committee. He asked that at the next committee meeting,
members be provided with a review of the spectrum of annual
savings to each license holder if the requirement for newspaper
publication of notification were eliminated.
MS. CHAMBER responded that an updated fiscal note would be
provided for Version J. She added that if the proposed
legislation eliminates the newspaper notification requirement
but includes a trade or industry publication notification
requirement, it may result in a far greater expense.
3:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that a licensee would be notified of
a proposed change in regulation; the discussion is regarding
notice to the public. He asked, "Are you trying to reach beyond
the licensees? Are you just trying to reach ... the average guy
or girl? ... Who are you trying to reach with this?"
MS. POLLARD answered that the people that an agency, board, or
commission must reach is listed in the APA mandatory steps;
these people include the licensees under CBPL, anyone on an
interested parties list, and legislators. She stated that it is
set in statute; the legislature gives the agencies parameters as
to who needs to receive notice; and the intention is that the
maximum number of people who are interested in the regulatory
action will receive notice.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that the trend of newspaper
publishers is to put content online; people do not buy as many
newspapers as they once did; and more people are reading
newspapers online. He said that as a purchaser of a newspaper
advertisement, he is given the choice - print or digital. He
suggested that there are many who do read legal notices
depending on their interests. He maintained that putting notice
on a public, centralized location rather than a state website
would be desirable to the average person.
3:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3, line 4, which read,
"contentions in writing or orally" and asked Ms. Pollard if she
had any comment on that phrase.
MS. POLLARD responded that DOL does not have any comment. She
explained that the section deals with public proceedings in a
regulations project and would require that people interested in
commenting would have the opportunity to present comments orally
as well as in writing. She added that currently that is
optional for agencies and boards.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to someone calling in to an
agency with a comment on a proposed regulation and asked if that
spoken testimony must be recorded to be part of the official
record.
MS. POLLARD answered that there is a requirement in the APA that
an agency "take a hard look" at comments received during a
regulations project; a complex regulations project attracts a
great deal of written information; and the agency would document
the receipt of comments while responding to them. She added
that when DOL reviews a regulations project, it must have
evidence that it complied with each statutory procedure, which
includes an affidavit from the person handling the regulations
project that oral and written comments were considered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if under the proposed legislation,
oral comments would be recorded verbatim and entered into the
record.
MS. POLLARD pointed out that page 10 of DOL's Drafting Manual
for Administrative Regulations was included in the committee
packet. She explained that this page advises agencies on
handling public hearings; the agency must have a plan for
keeping a record of the public comments received. She gave as
examples transcription by a court reporter or staff notes.
4:02:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he supports the proposed
legislation because it addresses both written and oral
testimony. He mentioned that some people will call in repeating
the testimony they gave in an email. He said that the proposed
legislation offers more opportunity for testimony. He stated
that he also supports eliminating the requirement for publishing
notification [of proposed regulation change] in newspapers to
save money.
4:03:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 190.
4:03:28 PM
PAMELA SAMASH testified that she supports HB 190 because of her
experience with the Alaska State Medical Board (ASMB). She
stated that she was denied the opportunity to provide oral
testimony on a regulation that was important to her and "a
matter of life or death." She said she asked ASMB for the
opportunity to provide oral testimony but was only allowed to
give written testimony by email. She said she was concerned
that ASMB members would not read all the written testimony they
received. She maintained that because the issue being
considered by ASMB was "lethal and dangerous to human life," she
wanted to be sure that each member of ASMB heard her testimony.
She asserted that ASMB never agreed to hear oral testimony, and
she said that she hopes the members read most of the emailed
testimony. She said that she felt "powerless and silent"
regarding a vote that was very important to her and to "hundreds
and thousands of future very innocent people."
4:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked Ms. Samash where she looks for
proposed regulation changes - the online site or the newspaper.
MS. SAMASH replied that she has received notice through the
newspaper, but for the regulation to which she was referring in
her testimony, she received notification through the internet.
4:06:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no one
else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 190.
4:06:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.
HB 163-DPS LAW ENFORCE. SVCS: AGREEMENTS/FEES
4:07:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act authorizing the Department
of Public Safety to enter into agreements with nonprofit
regional corporations and federal, tribal, and local government
agencies to provide law enforcement services; authorizing the
Department of Public Safety to collect fees for certain law
enforcement services; and providing for an effective date."
4:07:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:07 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
4:10:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) has proposed a committee substitute (CS) for HB 163.
4:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 163,
Version 30-GH1811\D, Martin, 3/30/17, as a working document.
There being no objection, Version D was before the committee.
4:11:00 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), explained that the only change under Version D is the
addition of a sentence in the paragraph entitled "APPLICABILITY"
under Section 3 of HB 163. The new sentence states that nothing
in the section requires a nonprofit to enter into an agreement
with DPS. He asserted that this change would assure the
nonprofits that DPS would not force them to pay [for law
enforcement services}. He added that DPS is anticipating a
meeting with the Governor's Tribal Advisory Council (GTAC) to
further discuss the language in the proposed legislation.
4:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the language in the
"APPLICABILITY" paragraph of Version D, Section 3, which states
that a contract with DPS is only allowed for an entity with no
local police force. She said that she did not understand the
rationale behind not allowing an entity with a local police
force to supplement its services through a contract with DPS.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that DPS does not want to compete
with existing police agencies; it will always augment or assist
them if requested. He stated that the proposed legislation
addresses DPS entering into a contract with agencies and
charging them. He maintained that DPS wants to avoid having
communities dissolve their police departments and ask DPS to
"take over."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she did not understand why
DPS, which does not want to contract with communities having an
organized police force in the future, would agree to contract
with communities with an organized police force as of the
effective date of the [bill]. She said that her understanding
was that the proposed legislation could address the Girdwood
situation. She said, "I still don't get it."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that the Girdwood situation is
unique: Girdwood is part of the Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA), which has an organized police force, and there is a
mechanism in place for the Anchorage Police Department (APD) to
provide services. Girdwood taxed itself to pay for services,
but the amount was not enough for what APD required; appropriate
charges are still being determined. He stated that the only
other areas for which he has concerns are areas like Bethel: a
number of police officers walked off the job [in Bethel] a few
years ago, and because there was a crisis, DPS had to assist
with the state charges. It did not assist with city charges.
He maintained that DPS intends to explore the possibility of a
charge.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that DPS is concerned about
communities like Bethel, for which DPS is called upon to assist
without the ability to charge. She suggested that the
prohibition for contracting with an entity with no organized
police force should be eliminated from the language of the
proposed legislation.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that there was a situation in
which DPS was requested to provide a Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) to a community to augment its law enforcement; as
soon as DPS did so, the community fired its tribal and village
police officers to save money. He maintained that it is for
that reason that DPS is hesitant to engage initially with an
entity that already has a police force, and he said he suspects
that DPS would act on a case by case basis. He reiterated that
DPS has seen communities take advantage of the department's
willingness to assist them.
4:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asserted that the question is: Are DPS and
the Alaska State Troopers (AST) obligated to provide law
enforcement services outside of organized areas that have their
own law enforcement, such as the City of Fairbanks, the City of
North Pole, MOA inside the police service area, and across the
state? He stated his concern regarding the lack of law
enforcement on the Seward Highway for the people of the Kenai
Peninsula and the municipality. He mentioned that legislators
have been advised that DPS intends to move the state troopers
from the area after May 2.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that the municipality can tax
itself. He added that DPS's dilemma is that trooper staffing
level is such that it is a struggle to staff areas with no
police availability at all. He stated that it is a moral
dilemma for DPS; in the Bush, where there is no alternative,
there are over 100 communities with no law enforcement presence
at all. He reiterated that MOA can tax itself; it partially
does tax itself; but it didn't "buy the whole APD package." He
maintained that it is incumbent upon the community, not the
state, to address that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he respectfully disagrees. He
relayed that the legislature is seated as an assembly under the
Alaska State Constitution for the areas outside of organized
municipalities and boroughs with law enforcement. He maintained
that outside of the city service areas, there is no provision
for police service. Residents can vote to organize a borough
and enlist police services; the city of Bethel could do so; and
it takes time to do so. He said he takes umbrage with the issue
that only 52 of 76 funded VPSO positions are filled; there are
24 vacancies; therefore, money is available to provide the law
enforcement services. He concluded that the legislature needs
to consider its ultimate responsibility for public safety. He
maintained that the Seward Highway between Anchorage and the
Kenai Peninsula with its heavy traffic cannot be ignored.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred that the issue is a legislative
and budgeting issue in terms of DPS resources.
4:21:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that several different problems have
created the situation. The first was the Girdwood situation:
Girdwood had an APD trooper; trooper funding was cut; and APD
"pulled back" officers from Girdwood. He said that consequently
the community of Girdwood, wanting law enforcement coverage,
contracted for it with its own funds. He stated that the second
problem involved the situation in Bethel: because of a lack of
personnel, troopers came into Bethel. He restated Commissioner
Monegan's fear that Bethel would fire its police force and rely
on the troopers. Since Bethel is an organized community, AST is
not responsible for law enforcement in Bethel. He stated the
third problem: the lack of officers in the AST force. He
referred to Commissioner Monegan's testimony in the 3/28/17
House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting that these
troopers would typically be retired troopers brought back into
the work force.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asserted that the problem is multi-layered:
there is a shortage of troopers and a shortage of funding except
for VPSOs. He maintained that DPS would not want to expend
resources in one area, when they are needed in other areas. He
asked Commissioner Monegan if in the Bethel situation - helping
Bethel out by providing officers - temporarily buys it time
until it can secure more officers, at which time DPS can
reallocate resources.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that in the Bethel situation that
was exactly what would happen. He relayed that AST filled in to
handle life threatening situations; there were only two Bethel
police officers at the time; and even the chief of police had
"walked off the job." He stated that AST provided assistance
until the Bethel Police Department (BPD) was able to rebuild its
police force and take over again.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN relayed the history of the Girdwood
situation as it relates to the proposed legislation: Girdwood
offered to contract with DPS to retain troopers in the
community; it was during these discussions that DPS realized it
did not have the receipt authority to enter into a contract with
Girdwood; and HB 163 was introduced to address this. He stated
that DPS wishes to expand its presence and provide services at a
higher and more quantitative level than currently - especially
in the rural areas. He offered that it is for this reason DPS
will resist a reduction in the number of VPSOs; it is hoping to
"turn around" on the recruiting and training issues for both
VPSOs and troopers. He opined that it would be short sighted to
"rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, especially if Paul had the
ability to find better and more readily available trained police
officers to them versus someplace else that has none." He
mentioned that the answer is "tangled" because the situation is
tangled, and there is not one answer to satisfy everyone. He
added that HB 163 is an attempt to give DPS receipt authority,
and DPS can work toward perfecting the process as it progresses.
4:26:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON relayed that she appreciates the problem
and the attempt to solve the problem through the proposed
legislation. She said that she recognizes that Alaska has a
shortage of troopers. She expressed her belief that the
proposed solution does not fundamentally "fit" the problem and
creates an "upside down" situation. She relayed that local
government would be asked to contract with DPS for a trooper to
provide police services and then would oversee the state
officers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there are police service areas
like there are road service areas and fire service areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that the answer to Representative
Johnson's question is yes. He relayed that it takes a vote of
the people to have a police service area - the same as for a
water service area, a sewage service area, or a fire service
area. He asserted that if a location is outside of an area,
that means that the residents have not voted to have the service
area. He added that historically the void has been filled by
the State of Alaska, which is responsible for the unorganized
boroughs and all the areas outside of service areas.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN, in response to Representative Johnson,
relayed that troopers with whom a community contracts would
still answer to trooper commanders, enforce state law and city
ordinances, and through the contract, get direction from the
community about its concerns. He said that DPS would use
retired troopers under long-term, non-permanent ("non-perm")
positions for these contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON mentioned that troopers at the trooper
post in Palmer have worked outside of their service area under
an agreement. She stated that providing public safety is a
fundamental function of state government; if a location is not
in a public safety service area, then it is the responsibility
of the troopers to provide services; and if a city has a public
safety service area, then they established it through a tax
base. She expressed her concerns with the proposed legislation:
it would introduce complicated scenarios of the state
contracting with non-profits and tribal organizations; it would
mix requirements of the state with the requirements of other
entities; and it would be fraught with many other issues.
4:31:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why any part of a municipality is
required to be in a service area. She stated that she lives in
Muldoon and, therefore, must pay for police protection from APD.
Hillside is not part of the service area; therefore, Hillside
residents do not have to pay for police protection by way of
property taxes. She asked why, if Hillside gets police
protection from the state troopers, she must pay for police
protection, but Hillside residents do not.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that Anchorage consisted of a
city and a borough, and when they were unified, service areas
were identified. Police and fire services were not area-wide;
schools were area-wide. He stated that the service areas
represented subsets of the larger municipality; service areas
were established through an affirmative vote by the municipality
annexing an area and an affirmative vote by the area being
annexed; and a tax was levied. He said that Girdwood residents
are not paying for police services because they are outside the
service area, and he mentioned that he believes the service area
stops at Potter Marsh. He added that what is being discussed is
the state highway from Potter Marsh past Girdwood to its city
limits at Portage. He said that outside the service area, it is
the state's responsibility to provide law enforcement services.
He maintained that with only 52 positions filled out of 76
funded DPS positions, there is much money available to reassign
to public safety for troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asserted that state troopers patrol
Hillside without cost to the residents, because the residents
have not voted for a police service area.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that is incorrect. Hillside is
in the [APD] service area; it was added many years ago under
former Mayor [Rick] Mystrom.
4:36:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON added that residents of the unorganized
borough do not pay taxes, and they receive trooper services;
whereas, another area might have to tax itself to pay for
trooper services. She said, "It's very mixed up here."
4:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked Commissioner Monegan if the troopers
have an obligation for patrolling federal and state highways
regardless of service areas.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that there are no federal highways
in Alaska; federal highways are interstate highways. He
explained that troopers have the authority to patrol state and
local highways, and it is by agreement with the municipality
which areas are covered.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that DPS has evolved and grown over
time. In the past public safety predominantly addressed highway
corridors, but currently it maintains an investigative unit, a
cold case unit, and other units. He asked if the Girdwood issue
was about providing public safety services along the highway
corridors or about the [special] units he just mentioned.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that was a point of contention:
Girdwood wanted to contract with DPS; the DPS decided that it
could provide the services for $600,000; but the Girdwood
[Valley Service Area] Board of Supervisors (GBOS) did not want
the Girdwood funded troopers to be on the highway or leave the
Girdwood valley. He said that was a "deal-breaker" for DPS
during negotiations even before DPS determined it had no ability
to collect funds from Girdwood for the services. He said that
subsequently Girdwood got [MOA assembly] approval to tax itself;
it has collected the tax; and it has contracted with the City of
Whittier [for police services]. He relayed that there are
ongoing discussions between APD and the City of Whittier, as
well as, between APD and the communities on the [Seward Highway]
to establish a fee schedule. He said that eventually APD will
support Whittier (indisc.) for the major crimes.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN asserted that "all this was really, truly
brought on" due to DPS staff reduction. He claimed that without
the reduction, these issues would not have occurred. He said
that DPS has lost troopers and VPSOs, and it makes more sense
for DPS to provide the rare services to communities (indisc.--
coughing).
4:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his relief that the communities
that no longer have troopers did not pay for them through state
taxes. He mentioned Commissioner Monegan's reference to
"retired or non-perm officers" being employed under contract
with DPS to provide services to an area in need of them. He
asked if the language in the proposed legislation could include
"retired officers". He stated that if a retired trooper was
providing public safety services to a community that contracted
with DPS for the services, then his concern for losing a trooper
to a community that is paying would be alleviated. He said he
did not know the prevalence of retired officers willing to work
on a contractual basis, and possibly many would prefer that type
of work. He offered that some of the communities wanting to
contract for police services just want a [public safety]
"presence." He suggested that there be language in the proposed
legislation that specifically identified retired or non-perm
officers for fulfilling long-term contracts. He emphasized that
he is not referring to short-term crisis management, like in the
Bethel situation.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that in discussing the proposed
legislation with Colonel [James] Cockrell (Director, AST, DPS),
Colonel Cockrell expressed his belief that the proposed
legislation could provide mentoring for new troopers; troopers
just released from training would benefit from working with
seasoned veterans of AST. He said that DPS tries to afford the
"baby troopers" as much exposure to the various types of
criminal investigations and activities as possible before being
transferred to a remote area. He contended that if only
retirees were considered under the proposed legislation, then
DPS would lose the benefit of retirees in other areas. He said,
"We would bring on the brand-new fellows and gals into these
contract areas - the long-term." He opined that the use of
retirees is best decided internally by DPS. He maintained that
the crux of the proposed legislation is for DPS to have receipt
authority and enter into agreements with entities that wish to
contract for services, and it is not about how staffing will be
accomplished. He mentioned that Nikiski has approached DPS
about contracting for additional troopers.
4:45:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to page 2, lines 8-9, of Version
D, and said that he has a question about the language, which
proscribes the ability for DPS to contract with an entity that
already has a police force. He offered to discuss that question
out of committee meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to different contracting agents -
armed security in federal buildings, security at the Port of
Anchorage (POA), and security in city buildings. He asked what
experience DPS has in contracting with qualified law enforcement
personnel who are equivalent to a full-fledged trooper but are
at a "secondary level of law enforcement or security services."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that the personnel utilized under
the proposed legislation would only be troopers or "special
commissions." He said that the troopers that would be
considered by DPS would be retired certified police officers,
who could handle any situation in the community, just like
troopers do. He stated that security guards and private police
are a different category and not what DPS would consider.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 163 would be held over.
4:47:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:48 to 4:50.
4:49:40 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the hearing on HB 165 would
be postponed to the 5:30 p.m. House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting of 4/4/17.
HJR 3-CONST. AM: 90 DAY REGULAR SESSION
4:49:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration
of regular sessions of the legislature.
4:50:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HJR 3, stated that it has been over ten years since
Alaska voters passed a ballot initiative to limit the
legislative session to 90 days. He maintained that since the
implementation of the initiative in 2008, the legislature has
exceeded the 90-day limit five times. He asserted that as
elected officials, it is the duty of legislators to listen to
the people of Alaska. The current pattern of extending the
session to 120 days shows voters that the legislature is neither
performing its job nor performing its job in the length of time
expected by the public.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that HJR 3 would allow voters to
decide once and for all on the length of the regular session of
the legislature by voting on an amendment to the Alaska State
Constitution. He offered that if the amendment is passed by the
voters, the length of the regular session would be changed from
120 days to 90 days in the state constitution. He noted that if
the amendment failed, he would support legislation to change the
Alaska Statutes to reflect 120 days, which would be consistent
with the public's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN emphasized that the public elected
legislators to make tough choices and to make these choices on
time and under budget. He asserted that the legislature needs
to maintain public confidence in the elective system.
4:51:29 PM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HJR 3, stated that HJR 3 would put a proposed constitutional
amendment on the ballot to change the length of the legislative
session from 120 days to 90 days. She reiterated that Alaska
voted in November 2006 to shorten the duration of the regular
legislative session to 90 days; since the initiative took
effect, the legislature has exceeded the 90-day limit five
times, costing Alaskans more than $900,000.
MS. PERMAN explained that currently the Alaska State
Constitution and the Alaska Statutes are inconsistent regarding
legislative session duration. She cited AS 24.05.150(b), which
read: "The Legislature shall adjourn from a regular session
within 90 consecutive calendar days, including the day the
legislature first convenes in that regular session." She
referred to Article II, Section 8, of the Alaska State
Constitution, which read: "The legislature shall adjourn from
regular session no later than one hundred twenty consecutive
calendar days from the date it convenes".
MS. PERMAN asserted that HJR 3 would update the state
constitution by changing 120 days to 90 days, if the public
votes in favor of the constitutional amendment. She said that
Section 1 of HJR 3 would amend Article II, Section 8, to state
"not later than ninety days". Section 2 of HJR 3 would amend
[Article XV] to state that the amendment to Article II, Section
8, would apply during the first regular session of the Thirty-
First Alaska State Legislature, [2019-2020], and thereafter.
She said that Section 3 of HJR 3 states that the proposed
amendments would be placed on the ballot in the next general
election.
MS. PERMAN relayed that in 1984 the Alaska State Constitution
was amended from an undefined session length to 120 days after
legislators were racking up costs (indisc.) oil tax structures.
She said that in 1981, session lasted 165 days. She explained
that the framers of the state constitution did not initially set
a limit for the length of session, but she added that clearly
without session duration limits, the legislature does not
resolve business in a timely and cost-effective manner.
MS. PERMAN related that last year's extended session lasted 121
days and cost the state $698,772, which does not include the
later special sessions. She maintained that the legislature
should eliminate the inconsistencies between the Alaska State
Constitution and the Alaska Statutes and demonstrate to Alaskans
that legislators are "here to do the job they elected us to do
in the time they have designated."
MS. PERMAN noted that the proposed amendment would not remove
the legislature's ability to extend session one time by ten days
by a two-thirds majority vote; that allowance will remain in
Article II, Section 8, of the state constitution. She also
mentioned that the Office of the Governor has assigned a zero-
fiscal note.
4:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he agrees in concept and has no
doubt that if put on the ballot, Alaskans will vote for a 90-day
session limit. He said that his concern is that the legislature
has only been successful in limiting the session to the 90 days
two times. He opined that he is not sure the legislature can
get its work done in 90 days. He offered that the legislature
may have to consider how it conducts business, and he suggested
that there would be unending special sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that when the initiative for 90
days passed, the legislature should have changed the way it did
business. He noted the length of time legislators spent in
budget sub-committees. He said, "I'm not pointing the finger at
anyone, it's part of the process." He offered the scenario of
legislators recognizing that budget sub-committees must be
concluded within 30 days. He said, "We would be in much better
shape in terms of debating budget issues if we ... realized
there was a meaningful deadline that we needed to meet to get
finished in 90 days." He asserted that he agrees that the
legislature needs to change the structure of how business is
done. He relayed that when he is in his home district, he is
asked, "What's taking so long?" When the answer is, "We're just
not very good at getting our work done," the response is, "You
just need to get better." He reiterated that legislators are
not hired to delay but to figure out ways to do their work
efficiently.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if there is any suggestion for how to
limit the [number of] special sessions through constitutional
amendment; a special session may be necessary once or twice but
should not be called endlessly "to get your way."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he would not have a problem
with trying to limit the authority allowing for repeated special
sessions. He maintained that a special session is called for a
specific purpose or limited items. For example, a special
session was called in October 2015 for oil and gas tax related
issues; it was for a specific purpose; and the work was
completed in seven to ten days. He mentioned that last summer's
special session had a limited number of items on the agenda. He
asserted that since the constitution allows 120 days for
session, "everything is still on the table" past the 90-day
point; therefore, legislators may continue to pretend that it is
"business as usual" for the next 30 days. He stated that the
proposed joint resolution addresses the extension of the regular
session beyond 90 days. He offered that he is open to
consideration of the question of calling special sessions, but
he said he does not believe the two issues to be linked. He
asserted that the governor's authority in the constitution to
call special sessions is separate from the section that HJR 3
proposes to amend.
4:58:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that when the legislative session was
unlimited [in length], legislators had no staff; a legislator
did all his/her own work. He mentioned that in films of old
floor sessions, there was one person next to the Speaker of the
House; now there is a "small army up there." He attested that
some legislators have as many as seven staffers. He maintained
that rather than legislators not getting their work done, they
are taking on much more work; because they are introducing so
many bills, they run out of time. He asserted that in
conjunction with the 90-day limit, there should be a limit on
the number of bills that are introduced and processed. He
maintained that the work of the legislature is not a 90-day job.
He said that even if the legislative session ended after 90
days, it has "such machinery in place that ... promulgates so
much more work than can be started and stopped in 90 days."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that he is not against a very
part-time legislature that meets for 90 days, but he stated that
he believes that the legislature would need to "take apart some
of the machinery" that is in place for inherently creating more
work than can be done in 90 days. He said that he applauds
Representative Claman's effort; he does not feel 120, 150, or
180 days should be the norm; but the legislature needs to take
on less work. He conceded that currently there is a great deal
going on in the state regarding the budget and revenue that is
unprecedented. He asked if Representative Claman foresees a
time when the legislature has a smaller mountain of work to do
and can do it in 90 days, and there are not hundreds of bills to
be processed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that if the public knew the
details of all the bills that individual legislators chose to
introduce, it would be disappointed. He maintained that Alaska
has functioned "pretty well" over the last 58 years. He
asserted that there are still problems to be fixed, but many of
the bills that are introduced have no chance of passing both
bodies of the legislature. It is generally recognized that
those bills are "not going to go anywhere." He said that the
question is: "Why are people continuing to bring forward bills
that they don't see any chance of them going anywhere?" He
maintained that the public is asking that question; it is a
question regarding legislators exercising proper restraint. He
relayed that in other states - many with shorter legislative
sessions than Alaska - one of the appeals of the shorter session
is that it is harder to file more bills. He asserted that he is
100 percent certain, for the reasons articulated by
Representative Wool, if the legislature reverted to a 120-day
session, there would not be a reduction in the bills filed, but
an increase, and the legislature would be in session even
longer.
[HJR 3 was held over.]
5:04:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:04
p.m.