05/13/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB47 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB177 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 13, 2021
3:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 47
"An Act relating to special registration plates for vehicles
owned by persons with disabilities."
- MOVED SB 47 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to the elimination or modification of state
agency publications that are outdated, duplicative, or excessive
or that could be improved or consolidated with other
publications or exclusively delivered electronically; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to state identifications and driver's licenses
for persons in the custody of the Department of Corrections;
relating to the duties of the commissioner of corrections;
relating to living conditions for prisoners; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 118(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to an increase of an appropriation due to
additional federal or other program receipts; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act establishing September 10 as Alaska Community Health
Aide Appreciation Day."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 5/15/21
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(FIN)
"An Act relating to special request registration plates
celebrating the arts; relating to artwork in public buildings
and facilities; relating to the management of artwork under the
art in public places fund; relating to the powers and duties of
the Alaska State Council on the Arts; establishing the Alaska
arts and cultural investment fund; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 5/15/21
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 47
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLE REGISTRATION/PERSONS W/DISABILITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GRAY-JACKSON
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA
03/23/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/21 (S) Moved SB 47 Out of Committee
04/22/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/23/21 (S) STA RPT 4DP
04/23/21 (S) DP: SHOWER, HOLLAND, KAWASAKI, COSTELLO
04/30/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/21 (S) VERSION: SB 47
04/30/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/30/21 (H) STA
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 187
SHORT TITLE: STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAUFMAN
04/22/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/21 (H) STA, FIN
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 118
SHORT TITLE: EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
03/01/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/21 (H) STA
03/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/01/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE: REVISED PROGRAM: APPROPRIATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
04/16/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 47, testified as
the prime sponsor.
ANNETTE ALFONSI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 47.
BESSE ODOM, Staff
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 47, on behalf of
Senator Gray-Jackson, prime sponsor, presented the Senator Gray-
Jackson's response to a letter opposing the bill.
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff
Representative James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 187, on behalf of
Representative Kaufman, prime sponsor, presented a sectional
analysis on Version G of the bill.
JEFFREY STEPP, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 118, explained
Amendment 4 and answered questions on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor of the bill.
LAURA BROOKS, Division Operations Manager
Health and Rehabilitation Services
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 118.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 118.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor of HB 177, introduced
the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:42:23 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:42 p.m.
Representatives Vance, Story, Claman, Kaufman, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representatives
Eastman and Tarr arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 47-VEHICLE REGISTRATION/PERSONS W/DISABILITY
3:43:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be SENATE BILL NO. 47, "An Act relating to special
registration plates for vehicles owned by persons with
disabilities."
3:43:39 PM
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor of SB 47, reminded committee members that SB 47
would amend the statute to allow speech-language pathologists,
physical therapists, and occupational therapists to provide
proof of disability to their client. She pointed out that only
chiropractors, physicians, physicians' assistants, or advanced
practice registered nurses can currently provide proof of
disability to their client. She noted that SB 47 is also known
as the disabled parking placard bill.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on SB 47.
3:44:56 PM
ANNETTE ALFONSI testified in support of SB 47. She shared the
story of someone who needed extra time in physical therapy after
a knee replacement and who could have used a [disability]
parking placard. The physician's office was full for a month
and during this wait time the patient fell while walking in a
parking lot in winter, breaking a hip and needing a hip
replacement. The patient's easily managed and temporary case
was escalated into a major issue, leave of absence from work,
bigger medical bills, and chronic increased pain. This could
have been prevented if the physical therapist had been able to
write the [application] form for a [disability] parking placard.
MS. ALFONSI stated that when thinking of this bill she is
thinking of the next person who will slip and fall next winter.
She related that about 20 percent of the Anchorage Bowl
population is eligible for services at Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson (JBER) Hospital. In other states the specialists in
SB 47 can write [an application] form for the military, but upon
moving to Alaska they can no longer write the forms even though
they have the experience, expertise, and scope of practice to do
it. The Veterans Administration is known for being difficult to
schedule an appointment with a physician; the least that can be
done for veterans who gave up their mobility for the freedom of
Americans is to make it easier for them to get the [disability]
parking placard.
MS. ALFONSI stated that SB 47 is simple, but profound. She said
the only thing legislators are voting on is whether physical
therapists, speech-language pathologists, and occupational
therapists should be able to write the [application] form for a
disability parking placard in Alaska. She urged a vote of yes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKIN closed public testimony on SB 47 after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
3:47:42 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON referenced a letter from Representative
Prax essentially opposing the bill. She requested that her
staff person read the bill sponsor's letter of response to the
representative's concerns.
3:47:57 PM
BESSE ODOM, Staff, Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of Senator Gray-Jackson, prime
sponsor of SB 47. She related that on May 9, 2021, the sponsor
received a letter from Representative Prax. She said the bill
sponsor had replied that the intent of SB 47 is to fix back-end
issues related to receiving disability plates, such as expanding
access and reducing overall wait times. The proposed
legislation does not address issues around parking spaces or the
perceived misuse of disability plates; an additional bill may be
needed to address the issues presented in the letter, and Ms.
Odom said the bill sponsor had let Representative Prax know she
would be willing to work with him to produce such a bill.
3:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled a question asked during the
bill's previous hearing regarding who would bear legal liability
if a person who received a license plate under this bill was
involved in an accident that related to their disability. For
example, whether a speech-language pathologist could be held
liable.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that when Jeffrey Schmitz of the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) answered this question [on
5/6/21], Mr. Schmitz didn't think that there was any liability
associated with the [disability parking] placard. Chair Kreiss-
Tomkins allowed he didn't know if that was a definitive legal
analysis.
3:50:20 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON said a question was put forth to Ms. Lori
Wing-Heier [Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development] about what a typical
liability profile insurance would be for the new group of
medical professionals that would be able to issue [disability
parking] placards versus the typical insurance levels that a
physician carries. She spoke from Ms. Wing-Heier's e-mailed
response as follows:
In reviewing the descriptions in the business
licensing statutes, the two new categories being added
by [SB] 47, the close analysis of physical
capabilities or disabilities are apparent. ... None of
the classifications note specific agreements with the
[Division] of Motor Vehicles [DMV] to identify
motorists who would benefit from the handicapped
placard or license plates. The insurance forms do not
address the assignments of handicapped parking
materials. Insurance forms would generally respond if
the person in question was shown to be legally liable
due to the performance of their professional services.
We cannot find any information in our filings for
professional liability that addresses an increase in a
premium because of the issuance of a handicapped plate
or placard. The handicapped designations are
generally assigned when the mobility is limited. The
handicapped parking materials would still require
proper licensing of the driver to meet the requirement
of DMV.
3:51:46 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON, responding to Representative Eastman,
explained that the part he referenced about veterans is already
in state statute. She said the only thing new in SB 47 is
adding speech-language pathologists, physical therapists, and
occupational therapists.
3:53:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained that a step away from the
bill's original intent is being taken, which focused narrowly on
someone's limited ability to walk. He said the committee is now
going past that and he is wondering why the committee hasn't
gone back and amended that portion of the statute which, at
present, on page 1, just limits it to those who can walk. He
stated that the only people who can apply for this are those who
have a disability that limits or impairs their ability to walk.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON referenced an e-mail provided by Ms.
Alfonsi [in follow-up to the bill's 5/6/21 hearing]. She spoke
from the e-mail as follows:
Upon reflection, the disability parking placard law is
only about parking, not about driving, so it would be
inappropriate to add drive to the end of it as
suggested in the last meeting. Also, since someone
who isn't driving can get a disability parking placard
form for someone else to drive, it furthers the idea
that this is about parking and walking, not about
driving. So, the form itself is fine the way it is
written. Since someone already has an active license
to drive when they are getting a parking placard there
is no liability on the part of a provider.
3:55:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report SB 47 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 47 was moved from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 187-STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
3:56:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 187, "An Act relating to the elimination
or modification of state agency publications that are outdated,
duplicative, or excessive or that could be improved or
consolidated with other publications or exclusively delivered
electronically; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee, adopted as the working document on 5/6/21, was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 187, Version 32-
LS0779\G, Wallace, 5/5/21 ("Version G").]
3:56:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, as the prime sponsor of HB 187,
addressed Version G. He drew attention to the sponsor statement
and spoke as follows:
HB 187 in its current form is intended to conserve
resources expended in the production, processing,
transportation, distribution, storage, and disposal of
excess state agency publications. The product
affected by HB 187 are publications as defined in AS
44.99.240. As currently written in statute, AS
44.99.220 requires state agencies to compile and
maintain a list of the publications that they produce
each fiscal year. This bill would ensure that the
state is receiving added value from the work that is
already being done by using the list as an opportunity
to assess the actual need for each document and to
determine if the people of Alaska will be best served
by printing or by digital delivery. HB 187 also
provides for the reduction in statutory requirements
to produce publications through changes made to AS
37.07.220. These changes will require that the
governor submit a bill to eliminate or modify
requirements for publications deemed to be outdated,
duplicative, or excessive, or could be consolidated
with other publications, and which of those could be
delivered in electronic form. Time, energy, space,
and materials can all be conserved by the passage of
HB 187.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated he is pleased to see HB 187 brought
forward.
4:00:00 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 187, Version G.
He explained that Section 1 would amend AS 37.07.020 to add a
requirement for the governor to submit legislation to remove or
amend the statutory requirements for publications that meet
these qualifiers. He said Section 2 would repeal and re-enact
AS 44.99.220 requiring state agencies to use the list of
publications, which is currently required to be developed in
that statute, to identify and highlight publications deemed to
be outdated, duplicative, or excessive, or that could be
consolidated with other publications, or could be delivered in
electronic form. This list of publications, including
highlighted publications, is required to be electronically
submitted to the governor and both bodies of the legislature.
The governor or the governor's designee is required to determine
a goal percentage of publications to be improved upon by each
state agency immediately prior to the start of each legislature
on even numbered years. Mr. Harvey noted that this last part is
a change and the main reason why the sponsor asked to adopt a
CS. The Office of Budget and Management (OMB), he related,
pointed out that complications might occur if it was submitted
every year because a bill sometimes takes two years to get
through both bodies. He further noted that "and" was changed to
"or" in several places in the bill, along with adding that the
report to the legislature would be submitted electronically.
4:02:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the practical impact would be
once the bill is passed into law.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN deferred to Mr. Harvey to answer.
MR. HARVEY replied that the fiscal note description states an
estimate of about $585,000 per year to print publications. He
said the sponsor does not have an estimate for the time,
delivery, and other things related to going from printing to
electronic and from getting rid of reports. Also, he noted, the
setting of goal percentages could differ department by
department.
4:03:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that this is a great idea. She said
she likes that a look is being taken at documents and
publications that could be improved, consolidated, or delivered
electronically. She noted that not everyone has access to the
internet, so there are times when documents do need to be
produced and she is glad to see that in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that Version G is the blending
of input received on the bill as it was presented while walking
the capitol.
4:05:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it makes sense to have a bill put
forward which deals with publications that are required by law.
He asked whether a bill is necessary for publications that are
required by regulation; he surmised the administration could
handle those without a bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered that the bill is trying to
create the feedback loop that doesn't exist right now. The
intent is that legislation is required and if it can be done
administratively, then it can just be reported that something
was reduced. The desire is to create the feedback loop that
then can be used to trigger legislation if required but also as
a status report of publication. He qualified that he doesn't
want to say reduction, but rather rationalizing the state's
publications against what they need to be or what's beneficial
and the delivery methods. He said he would welcome changes to
the wording if necessary to make that clearer.
4:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew attention to the bill, page 2, line
15, regarding a minimum percentage of publications that each
state agency is to identify as needing work. He asked whether
it is the sponsor's intent that the percentage cut apply to each
individual agency or to all agencies collectively combined,
given that some agencies may only have one or two publications.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied that the intent is to create a
custom goal-setting opportunity for each agency; it enables
administrative focus. He explained the goal could be zero if an
agency is so lean that it is considered a model for others; for
example, an agency has aligned its document production and
delivery so well that it cannot find any waste.
4:08:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that a meta-affect would be set
into motion by the bill, it would be an ongoing administrative
process that is aimed to reduce administrative processes. When
it first runs its course, he continued, the administration will
identify things that are pointless and should be ended, and
hopefully the legislature will act on that and about 90 percent
of the value will be realized. He inquired about the ongoing
frequency of what is in Section 1 and in Section 2 on page 2,
lines 14-15, given the biennial cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that the goal of quality
management is the reduction of wasted time, effort, and money
for meeting an agency's desired result, and to not exceed
expectations and to not underperform. When this list is
compiled, he explained, it creates the awareness and then there
is the opportunity to declare that some of it can be reworked.
If improvement projects are done successfully, it will get to a
point of diminishing returns, which would be reflected in the
reports.
4:12:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what value the language in Section 2
adds beyond that which is established in Section 1. Presumably,
he continued, the agencies are not going to identify anything in
addition to, or different from, what is identified in Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN deferred to Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY answered that initially the goal setting would serve
for how to get those broad chops; then, as it goes on and gets
into diminishing returns, there could be creativity in how to
combine or better provide value with some of those reports.
When it gets to the point where the returns diminish such that
this itself is excessive, OMB has advised that this could then
be highlighted as a report needing to be statutorily revised.
4:15:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pointed out that it is not static because
two legislative bodies are producing expectations for
documentation, so the list is everchanging with new inputs. The
process is built the way it is, he explained, to keep the
managers aware and on their toes that they can recommend
consolidations or recommendations. He noted that the terms
"reports" and "publications" have been used interchangeably in
today's discussion, but that it is publications, the greater set
of documents.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, regarding a report that is not adding
value, questioned why anyone in an agency would not be
recommending it for deletion in Section 1. In other words, he
continued, the list in Section 1 would not be any different than
what is in Section 2.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN offered to look more closely at this to
see if the bill could be made shorter.
4:16:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she reads Section 1 as taking the
information from Section 2 and requiring the governor to
introduce legislation that would list those things.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that that is right, in part, but
said Section 1 would still read coherently without the process
in Section 2, on page 2, line 9.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pointed out that the goal setting is not
included in Section 1, which is the ongoing "let's keep working
this" where there may be numerous publications and managers can
have a stretch target to continue looking and improving.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he understands that part but opined
that the agency which should be measured for performance is the
legislature. He stated that since the publications are
statutorily required it is in the legislature's hands to get rid
of the publications that are recommended by the agencies, so it
is the legislature should be held to account relative to that
recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded he would be happy to come up
with a bill to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that there is a mechanism for
making sure this bill gets heard once it is presented because
there is something in the uniform rules about committees acting
on all the bills that come before them.
4:20:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an estimate on the length of
time it would take to compile the list, given the even year
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied it is variable because it depends
on the length and complexity of the list for each agency. The
list already exists, the challenge would be to do the analysis
for making recommendations, and that would depend upon the
agency's present understanding of the benefit of the documents
it is producing. It may be a challenge for some agencies and a
very quick activity for others.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, regarding the list that would be created
by HB 187, asked whether it is the sponsor's intention that this
report would be added to that list at some point in the distant
future.
MR. HARVEY answered that it likely would. He explained that OMB
would act as the compiling body through the budget process;
along with asking for draft budgets from each department, OMB
would also ask for this list.
4:23:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his appreciation for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN stated that bills like HB 187 are just
one slice of many opportunities to implement continuous quality
improvement.
4:24:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 187 was held over.
HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
4:24:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to state
identifications and driver's licenses for persons in the custody
of the Department of Corrections; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to living conditions for
prisoners; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was HB 118 as amended on 4/1/21.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted there have been off-line discussions
on the bill between his office, Representative Vance, the
Department of Corrections, and the Department of Law. He
reminded members that currently on the table is Amendment 3,
[offered by Representative Vance on 4/27/21, and labeled 32-
LS0024\B.6, Radford, 4/19/21].
4:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Amendment 3.
4:25:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 4, labeled 32-LS0024\B.7,
Radford, 5/10/21, which read:
Page 6, lines 26 - 27:
Delete "[AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR"
Insert "and may only [NOT] be used in a manner
authorized by the department [FOR"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:26:16 PM
JEFFREY STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 118. He explained Amendment
4 on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins [and amendment co-
sponsor, Representative Vance]. Under the amendment, he said,
Sec. 4. AS 33.30.015(a) would be amended to read: (a) The
commissioner may not ... (3) allow a prisoner held in a state
correctional facility operated by the state to ... (I) use a
computer other than those approved by the correctional facility;
the use of a computer under this subparagraph may be approved to
facilitate the prisoner's rehabilitation or the prisoner's
compliance with a reentry plan or case plan developed under AS
33.30.011, including use related to employment, education,
vocational training, access to legal reference materials,
visitation, or health care and may only be used in a manner
authorized by the department.
MR. STEPP further related that the sponsor has had good faith
conversations with Representative Vance and her staff, as well
as with the Department of Corrections and the Department of Law.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited comment from the Department of
Corrections.
4:28:13 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Division Operations Manager, Health and
Rehabilitation Services, Department of Corrections (DOC), spoke
to Amendment 4. She offered DOC's understanding that there are
concerns about inmate access to technology and safety regarding
inmate use of technology. She said the department has been
listening and shares concern. While this technology is new to
DOC, she continued, the important distinction is that it isn't
new technology. The tablets being looked at and the access
being talked about are designed for correctional use and have a
multi-layered security matrix that lets inmates access approved
content without being able to access the internet at all and
without being able to access the settings to be able to change
that access. This is well tried in systems much larger than
Alaska's DOC and is designed to be tamper proof and to meet
correctional safety standards. The primary mission of DOC is to
protect the public and DOC remains committed to protecting
victims and victims' rights. Safeguards are in place to protect
DOC staff, those in DOC's care, and crime victims, and DOC does
not believe this bill counters or undermines any of those
safeguards. The department will continue to take all necessary
safeguards and utilize appropriate security measures to ensure
that these protections remain.
4:30:01 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), stated she is speaking from the
prosecutor's perspective and a core concern for a prosecutor is
protecting the victim, which includes after there is an arrest.
She explained that DOL works with its counterparts in law
enforcement and in DOC to ensure that measures are taken to keep
victims safe. As soon as a case is initiated, DOL asks for a no
contact order as a condition of bail and when the person is
remaining in DOC custody. The department continues that request
into sentencing, which would then include any time spent in
custody of DOC serving out the sentence. She noted that DOL
works closely with DOC because DOC can monitor the inmate's
activity and can alert law enforcement for an investigation if
things are seen that are a little off or that are concerning.
She said she doesn't see anything in the bill or in Amendment 4
that would hinder DOL's ability to continue to protect victims
in this way.
4:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN brought attention to page 6, line 21,
which states that these computers can only be those approved by
the "correctional facility". He said it seems a distinction is
being drawn there with the amendment because the amendment is
talking about manners that are authorized by the "department".
He asked why there would not be the consistency of requiring the
approval of the "correctional facility" in both places.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in response to Ms. Brooks, clarified
that page 6, line 21 states, "use of a computer other than those
approved by the correctional facility", while Amendment 4 states
limiting the use of these computers to manners that are
"authorized by the department". He said he is asking why the
word "department" was chosen in Amendment 4, the purpose it
serves, and whether that is better or worse than replacing the
word "department" with the phrase "the correctional facility" in
the amendment.
MS. BROOKS replied that the Department of Corrections looks at
those words as interchangeable. She said there may be some
circumstances where a particular facility may or may not have
the infrastructure that could allow some forms of technology
versus others, and so that may be the distinction there. When
looking at a particular type of computer, DOC may need to allow
a particular facility to make that determination, but the
ultimate responsibility still lies with the department.
4:34:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about how something would come
to be authorized by the department as spoken of in Amendment 4,
such as the process and who would have the final say.
MS. BROOKS responded that it would go as the department already
authorizes things. She said there is a process in place, and it
depends on who is initiating the request. Anything that is more
specific than what is used by the entire population, or anything
that falls outside of standard guidelines, must be approved
through the department's central office, through DOC's director
of institutions, and sometimes it goes to the level of deputy
commissioner or even the level of commissioner for approval.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DOC would object to
changing the word "department" to "correctional facility" in the
amendment, given the earlier statement that "department" and
"correctional facility" are somewhat interchangeable,
MS. BROOKS answered that she doesn't think DOC would have an
objection, and she understands Representative Eastman is looking
for uniformity in the language.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied correct.
4:36:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested Mr. Stepp to respond to
Representative Eastman's question.
MR. STEPP offered his understanding that the department sets the
policy, which is what the amendment is referencing, and the
facilities execute the policy at the local level. He said it
seems to him that having the authorization come from the higher
authority is what would be wanted rather than from the
individual correctional facility. He qualified that he would
defer to DOC and/or DOL in this regard.
MS. BROOKS agreed with Mr. Stepp. She said that if looking for
changes for purposes of uniformity, DOC would prefer that
"department" be used to keep it uniform rather than referring to
the individual correctional facility for that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the point made by Ms. Brooks.
4:38:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that that makes sense to him. He
requested Representative Vance's opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she prefers the language offered by
DOC because it provides the multi-layered oversight that she
wants to have in this. She added that Mr. Stepp explained it
well regarding policy versus implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that how to implement this issue was
discussed in prior hearings and he thinks Amendment 4 does it
very well and he wouldn't change a word.
4:39:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
4, to delete "correctional facility" on page 6, line 21, and
replace it with "department". There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that this changes the language from
"use a computer other than those approved by the 'correctional
facility'" to the language "use a computer other than those
approved by the 'department'". She posed a situation of not
enough computers to go around so that the correctional facility
needs to set up a schedule for use of the computers. She asked
whether, under this language change, the department would have
to approve the schedule set up by the correctional facility,
thereby creating a complicated situation of micro-management.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he is putting a lot of weight
into the statement by Ms. Brooks that this is the language
preferred by DOC. He asked Ms. Brooks for further comment.
MS. BROOKS answered that DOC's primary concern is making sure
that the computers being provided, and the access, is closely
monitored and the department has oversight on that. She
explained that even when it is said that a correctional facility
can approve use, or can approve a particular item, that still
must come through the department overall. So, DOC would issue
that authority down the line through giving that authority to
that individual facility if there were some technological issues
that required deviation from what DOC has approved for all the
other facilities. She said she therefore thinks the language
"use a computer other than those approved by the department" is
sufficient, will not add additional burden on the department for
management, and will not add any kind of multi-layer system that
would slow down an approval process for the individual facility.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he thinks the department having this
authority is for the best. He surmised that the decisions made
by the department will not be which computer with which serial
number to use, but rather whether to use iPads or touchscreens,
which are appropriate decisions for the department to make.
4:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4, as amended, was
adopted.
4:44:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 118, as amended today and on
4/1/21, was now before the committee. He expressed his support
for the bill and its provisions.
4:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 118, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection CSHB 118(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 177-REVISED PROGRAM: APPROPRIATIONS
4:45:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act relating to an increase of
an appropriation due to additional federal or other program
receipts; and providing for an effective date."
4:45:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:45 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.
4:47:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
to introduce HB 177.
4:47:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, introduced HB 177. He said HB 177 attempts to
put limitations on the Revised Program Legislative (RPL)
process. The RPL process, he said, was originally to allow the
governor to receive additional funds from other sources, mostly
from the federal government, any time the legislature has
previously set up a program and appropriated money for that
program. However, he noted, this last year the governor took
liberties to set up his own programs from funding sources that
the legislature did not first establish, and this was never
constitutionally challenged nor challenged in the courts. There
was an injunction, but the injunction was to stop the process.
It went to the Alaska Superior Court and was never ruled upon,
but the court looked for legislative action. So, this last year
the legislature ratified what the Legislative Budget & Audit
Committee had done. For injunction purposes, Representative
Tuck explained, the Alaska Superior Court judge is looking for
some sort of legislative action, but it could be argued that
that wasn't the appropriate legislative action since at no time
during that time can any individual member of the legislature
amend that specific RPL, which shows that the legislature did
not have full appropriations powers. So, he continued, HB 177
is a cleanup bill allowing the legislature to continue being the
appropriators for the legislature. The bill would establish
sidebars and limitations so that an RPL introduced by the
governor to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee could not
go forward 45 days later if the committee doesn't approve or
doesn't take up that RPL.
4:50:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK presented a sectional analysis of HB 177.
He explained that Section 1, page 1, lines 5-7, would amend AS
37.07.080(h) to clarify that the RPL process is only available
for additional funds for existing programs or projects that have
already been funded by the legislature. He said page 2, lines
3-8, would amend AS 37.07.080(h)(3) to require approval by the
full legislature if the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee
recommends against the RPL. This would eliminate the governor's
ability to act unilaterally on his or her own 45 days later, he
explained, so that only by approval from the legislature could
the governor move forward.
4:51:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his understanding that under HB
177 the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee could approve a
substantial increase in an appropriation and the appropriation
would never come back to the legislature. Only if the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee rejected the governor's
proposed program, would it get back to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied correct. He said that, currently,
if the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee doesn't take it up
or doesn't approve it, the governor can act anyway 45 days
later. So, really, the only purpose of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee to take it up is to speed it up, but not to
require the full legislature to take it up.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his understanding that the RPL
process is a take-it-or-leave-it framework. Regarding HB 177,
he asked whether there is room for the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee to negotiate changes with the governor or
whether it is still a take-it-or-leave-it structure, or the bill
doesn't say.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that the process is that if the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee fails to adopt an RPL,
the governor then has two choices. The first choice is to wait
the 45 days. [The second choice is] to withdraw that RPL since
an RPL cannot be amended, and then introduce a new RPL that is
accommodating to the legislature's wishes.
4:53:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN posed a scenario in which the governor
presents an RPL to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
and the committee says it will agree to 50 percent but not 100
percent. He asked whether the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee would need to reject that RPL and then the governor
would come back or whether in those negotiations there is some
way to negotiate that in the process before it gets officially
rejected.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered no, it is going back to the take-
it-or-leave-it scenario until the governor gets it in such a
form that the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee will
approve it. He said there is no way to change the language or
the amount during a committee hearing because the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee does not have that ability to amend.
He explained that it is already a gray area on whether the
governor should have this power in the first place. That power
is granted to the governor through the RPL process written under
AS 37.07.080(h), as well as what the legislature puts in the
operating budget. The problem with the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee being able to amend that is that the committee
is basically acting on behalf of the full legislature, and that
is where it is granting too much power to the committee on
behalf of the legislature. So, technically, an RPL cannot be
stopped because 45 days later once "we grant those permissions"
to the governor he can act anyway. He clarified that when he
says "grant those permissions" he is not talking about by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee but by the statutes along
with whatever is put into the operating budget. Representative
Tuck related that this last year $1.6 billion came through the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. There are programs that
were never set up by the legislature, there are programs that
were never in existence, programs that the governor unilaterally
set up on his own. That is not the intent of the RPL process,
he stressed, [the legislature] is the appropriations body, and
that was exercising way more power than what is granted in
statute and granted in the operating budget.
4:56:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated he likes HB 177 because he didn't
like the process last year as he thought it was way too much
power to the governor and [the legislature] had given up too
much power as the appropriating body. He posed a scenario in
which the governor comes in with an RPL for $100 million and,
via negotiations before the committee ever sits, it becomes
clear that committee members don't want to agree to the $100
million. He asked whether, under the framework of HB 177, the
governor would be able to withdraw that RPL and resubmit an RPL
for $50 million.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes and advised that that is the
way it is currently. As well, he said, that opportunity would
still be there through this legislation.
4:58:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that a main benefit of HB 177 is
that it would force it to be used the way it is supposed to be
used with already established programs. She cited the [2020]
business assistance program as an example of a program that was
done improperly, causing delay in businesses receiving the
funds. She stated that in addition to the separation of powers
and cleaning up of the process as identified by the courts, the
other benefit of HB 177 is that it would naturally mean that the
programs would already exist, and if additional funds were to
come through and if things needed to be changed there would be
the ability to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recounted that as introduced to the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, the RPL for small
business relief funds was for loans, not grants. After the
committee said that would be a problem, he continued, the
governor pulled that RPL and re-submitted an RPL as grants.
However, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA), which only does loans, had already started a request
for proposal process to get banking institutions to administer
those loans. Upon being converted to grants, the request for
proposal had to be modified and there was no response from
financial institutions; it took three RPLs to finally get
institutions to respond. The governor then ended up running the
money for the RPL process through the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) because that is where
grants are administered, and then money was transferred to AIDEA
and AIDEA exercised its procurement policies to get institutions
to do that. So, Representative Tuck continued, it was very
messy and there are three questions: Did people receive the
money who really needed to receive the money? Did people get
money who should not have gotten the money? Did the program
really do what it was wanted to do? He said the answer is
probably no on all three questions. He stated he understands
why, during a pandemic, the vote was to overrule the [committee]
chair to get those monies out rather than to allow the full
legislature to do that. He said HB 177 would put up sidebars to
prevent that from happening again.
5:02:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK addressed Section 1 of the bill. He said a
problem with the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee having
the powers to amend is the same problem that is had on the
second page, which is the committee having the power to stop an
RPL. He pointed out that currently the governor can act within
45 days after submitting an RPL if the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee takes no action. He suggested a potential
amendment to the bill that would: stop [the governor] for 45
days for anything not exceeding $20 million, stop the governor
for 90 days for anything between $20 million and $50 million,
stop the governor for 180 days for anything between $50 million
and $100 million, and stop the governor for 270 days for
anything over $100 million if the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee does not act. That would take it into the legislature
coming back into session, Representative Tuck explained. The
legislature has difficulty calling itself into a special
session, he continued, and if the governor doesn't call the
legislature into a special session to appropriate these funds,
then the governor cannot act until these timeframes are up.
This would give the legislature time to get its act together to
call a special session if the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee did not approve an RPL.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, responding to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins, allowed
that the legislature does not like special sessions and said a
reason for having the RPL process is so special sessions can be
prevented. However, he added, a balance is needed so the
governor doesn't just do whatever he or she wants.
5:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee can sponsor bills.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that because the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee is a joint committee made up of both the
House and Senate, the only way the committee can introduce bills
is through the Rules Committee, much like the governor
introduces a bill through the Rules Committee. In this case, he
stated, he decided to introduce this legislation in the House.
5:05:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN allowed he is not acquainted with the
procedures of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee and
that this is his first time to deal with this statute. He drew
attention to the language on page 2, line 2, that states "not
initiate the additional activity". He asked whether this
language is still an artifact to the creation of a new activity
when what is being talked about now is the creation of a new
activity as well as spending a little bit more on the same type
of project. He further asked whether there might be a benefit
to making that more in line with the new language that is at the
beginning of Section 1. Responding to Representative Tuck for
clarification, he questioned whether the language "not initiate
the additional activity" captures the new statute because it
isn't just starting new projects that is being talked about, but
also conceivably spending additional money on the same project.
He suggested that the language read, "not make an expenditure
concerning the additional activity". He said it is the word
"initiate" that he is looking at and whether that word is still
appropriate given the changes that are trying to be made to the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that that is existing language. He
explained that what is being said is that if the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee does not call itself into a committee
hearing to take up the RPL, or if the committee denies the RPL,
then the governor cannot go any further with the additional
activity. Therefore, he continued, he thinks it reads alright,
but he is open to how that can be improved. Basically, it is
additional activity according to a program established by the
legislature, signed by the governor, and appropriated by the
legislature.
5:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that there were three classifications
of inappropriate RPLs seen by the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee this year. One was setting up the governor's own
program, another was appropriating money which the governor had
previously vetoed, and the third was putting into an RPL items
in the capital budget that [the legislature] did not pass. He
stated that if the governor vetoes something, then it isn't
prescribed by law to have that program. One such vetoed program
was the community assistance program, which the governor then
appropriated around the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what an appropriate remedy would be
when a governor takes the aforementioned kind of liberty with an
appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that that is something for the
court to decide; he would have liked for the court case go a
little further. He said he originally thought the lawsuit would
come from a municipality rather than from outside, and it was
only an injunction, not a full discussion about the
appropriateness of the RPL process and the way the governor is
using it. A lawsuit is needed that continues all the way to the
supreme court, he continued, and then the judges would decide a
remedy. However, he said, he doesn't think the remedy would be
anything more than don't do it again because the money has been
appropriated. [There needs to be] checks and balances to ensure
that that activity doesn't happen anymore, he added.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he, too, wishes the lawsuit by
Mr. Forrer and Mr. Geldhof had reached a conclusion of the
supreme court just to have the clarity regarding appropriation
powers and executor discretion.
5:11:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 177 was held over.
5:12:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered closing comments on housekeeping
items.
5:13:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:13 p.m. to 5:17 p.m.
5:17:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS amended his closing comments on
housekeeping items.
5:17:41 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:18
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 177 Research RPL History Summary.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| SB 47 Letter of Support - Carrothers 5.11.21.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| HB 118 Amendment B.7 - Kreiss-Tomkins and Vance.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |