03/15/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB396 | |
| HB291 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB309 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2022
3:05 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
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act restricting certain investments of state funds in
certain Russian entities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 291(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to the inspection and testing of fire dampers,
smoke dampers, combination fire and smoke dampers, and smoke
control systems; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act providing for a standardized improvement tracking system
for state agencies."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act exempting candidates for municipal office and municipal
office holders in municipalities with a population of 15,000 or
less from financial or business interest reporting requirements;
relating to campaign finance reporting by certain groups; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 396
SHORT TITLE: DIVEST INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIAN ENTITIES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/09/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 291
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SPONSOR(s): TARR
01/27/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/22 (H) STA, FIN
02/17/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/17/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/22/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/22/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: SMOKE/FIRE DAMPERS & SMOKE CTRL SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): TUCK
05/19/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/19/21 (H) STA, FIN
01/18/22 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: STANDARDIZED IMPROVEMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
SPONSOR(s): KAUFMAN
02/11/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 309
SHORT TITLE: APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
SPONSOR(s): KREISS-TOMKINS
02/07/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/22 (H) CRA, STA
03/03/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/03/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/10/22 (H) Moved CSHB 309(CRA) Out of Committee
03/10/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/14/22 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 1DP 1NR 3AM
03/14/22 (H) DP: MCCARTY
03/14/22 (H) NR: SCHRAGE
03/14/22 (H) AM: DRUMMOND, MCCABE, HANNAN
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
EDUARDO SARAVALLE
New York City, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 396.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks on proposed
CSHB 218, Version W,, as the prime sponsor.
JENS SCHURIG, Organizer
Sheet Metal Workers Local 23
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 218, Version
W, and answered questions from committee members.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 218, Version W, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime
sponsor.
RICHARD BOOTHYBY, Alaska State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire and Life Safety
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 218, Version W.
ED MARTIN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 218.
DON JAGER
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 218.
BEN ANGLEN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 218.
JUSTIN CARPENTER, Service Technician
Cool Air Mechanical
Sheet Metal Union Local 23
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 218.
CHRIS MILLER, Board Member
Alaska Professional Design Council
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 218.
CHRISTINE NESS, Senior Fire Protection Engineer
Respec Company
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 218.
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff
Representative James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on HB
316, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime sponsor.
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSHB 309(CRA), on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 309(CRA).
CLAY WALKER, Mayor
Denali Borough
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on CSHB 309(CRA).
JOHN HANDELAND, Mayor
Nome
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 309.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:05:55 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Representatives Vance, Tarr, Kaufman, Eastman, Story, Claman,
and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
HB 396-DIVEST INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIAN ENTITIES
3:07:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act restricting certain
investments of state funds in certain Russian entities; and
providing for an effective date."
3:09:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited Mr. Saravalle to share opening
remarks on private entities divesting from Russian assets and
the extent to which it had a sanctioning effect on Russia.
3:09:42 PM
EDUARDO SARAVALLE, a former researcher for the Energy, Economics
& Security program at the Center for a New American Security
(CNAS), answered yes, ever since the first escalation of U.S.
sanctions against Russia, there had been a voluntary worldwide
divestment from the Russian market, which was in turn,
destabilizing the Russian economy. He noted that voluntary
actions could be helpful to the U.S. policy; however, they could
also be counterproductive. He encouraged private entities or
state governments to align their actions with U.S. policy and
opined that HB 396 was well-thought out in that respect.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that divestment policy
should include a "stick and carrot" approach that included a
"renormalization" mechanism to reinvest in Russia.
MR. SARAVALLE answered yes, to ensure that the entity or state
government was being as constructive as possible in fostering
U.S. policy.
3:13:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how the legislature should consider
its actions relative to unintended consequences or other
disruptions in the marketplace that wouldn't achieve that long-
term goal.
MR. SARAVALLE acknowledged that the risk of a less ethical
investor profiting from divestment policy was a concern in any
divestment campaign. Nonetheless, he pointed out that the
concern about other actors swooping in and taking advantage of a
strong principal move would likely be from jurisdictions that
weren't complying with sanctions or ones that were skeptical of
sanctions.
3:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how to approach the political
decision of instructing APFC or other state agencies to divest
from Russian assets, which were worth very little, with no place
to sell them. He questioned the practicality of that scenario.
MR. SARAVALLE acknowledged that uncertainty was harming the
value of Russian assets, as well as the intermediaries of global
security transactions, which were extremely risk averse and
limited the ability to change ownership. Finally, Russia was
imposing limitations on transactions as well. He explained that
all of those factors combined were lowering the price of Russian
assets and making them "uninvestable" and illiquid. He
acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, adding that any
divestment scenario would have to confront the mechanics of
selling low price shares and changing ownership. He pointed out
that any decision would have to wait and see how the situation
developed, as issuing a blanket divestment order would be
difficult.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there was a secondary market
for Russian stocks in other parts of the world.
MR. SARAVALLE said he was unsure. He cautioned that other
intermediaries would be even more risk averse than a Russian-
based exchange.
3:24:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for a contrasting analysis of
Chinas support for the Russian invasion of Georgia [in 2014]
versus China's support for the Russian incursion into Ukraine.
Additionally, he asked how likely it was that China would invest
in place of those who were divesting.
MR. SARAVALLE pointed out that it was a highly fluid situation.
He noted that the sanctions in 2014 were significantly lighter,
making it relatively easy for China to invest and circumvent the
sanctions. He stated that if China was interested in helping
Russia now, it would be a "different ballgame," as current
sanctions were much heavier.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that Mr. Saravalle had mentioned
the need for a "clear ask" when stipulating divestment policy.
He asked what the clear ask was in terms of U.S. sanctions and
who the sanctions were designed to harm.
MR. SARAVALLE indicated that the U.S. ask was still developing.
Potential options included the recognition of Eastern Ukraine as
independent, as well as the de-annexation of Crimea and
reparation or support for the reconstruction of Ukraine. He
reminded the committee that sanctions were a bargaining measure,
adding that those in the administration were carefully ensuring
that the sanctions did not impose unnecessary harm.
Nonetheless, he pointed out that there were likely multiple
targets, noting the so-called "oligarch sanctions" were intended
to turn those closest to President Vladimir Putin against him.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced a report that suggested that
President Putin's support had increased since the conflict
began. He asked whether sanctions were working.
MR. SARAVALLE explained that the shared experience of suffering
could bring a "rally around the flag" effect. He reiterated
that sanctions were intended to alter the decision making of the
president, as opposed to causing a revolution. He noted that
they could have the potential to change the calculus of
leadership.
3:37:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to confirm that the purpose of
sanctions was to put pressure on leaders to negotiate.
MR. SARAVALLE answered yes.
3:39:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what should be included or avoided in
terms of crafting divestment policy.
MR. SARAVALLE recommended keeping it specific, targeted, and
clear. He noted that more clarity would make the policy easier
to "technically undo." He provided an example. He addressed
the uncertainty in regard to the mechanics of divestment and
recommended clarifying "the how" as well.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that a trigger for
renormalization should be included, as well as narrowly
prescribed policy. Additionally, proper flexibility should be
included to account for "wonky" market mechanics. He asked if
that was accurate.
MR. SARAVALLE answered yes.
3:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that by divesting, an
opportunity would be created for the worst actors who lacked
qualms about buying Russian shares at fire sale prices. He
asked if that was correct.
MR. SARAVALLE answered yes, that would be a potential risk.
3:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how many states had divested in
Russia.
MR. SARAVALLE did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern about backlash due to
Alaska's geopolitical position.
MR. SARAVALLE acknowledged that any sanctioned action may likely
lead to backlash. However, as Russia was involved in a physical
invasion, he pointed out that the country would have to
stabilize its economy before considering backlash.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that since 2013 or 2014, Russia
had embargoed Alaska seafood, which was costing the state
millions. She expressed her concern about Russia's "long
memory" and asked whether there could be backlash that directly
impacted the Alaska seafood industry.
MR. SARAVALLE acknowledged that Russia could impose counter
sanctions that could be detrimental to the Alaskan economy. He
emphasized the need to include the lifting of sanctions in the
U.S. ask, adding that it would be a matter of diplomacy for the
U.S. government to clearly articulate.
3:50:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 396 was held over.
3:51:17 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 291-EXTENDING COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
3:53:15 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 291, "An Act extending the termination
date of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee,
adopted as the working draft on 3/8/22, was proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 32-LS1425\G, Radford, 3/2/22 ("Version
G").]
3:54:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:54:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS1425\G.1, Radford, 3/12/22], which read:
Page 1, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "and one of whom shall be a member of an
Alaska Native organization"
Page 2, lines 15 - 18:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 19:
Delete "(2)"
Delete "7,500"
Insert "3,500 [7,500]"
Page 2, lines 20 - 21:
Delete "or with a population of 3,500 or less
that is connected by road or rail to Anchorage or
Fairbanks"
Insert "[OR WITH A POPULATION OF 3,500 OR LESS
THAT IS CONNECTED BY ROAD OR RAIL TO ANCHORAGE OR
FAIRBANKS]"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, prime sponsor of HB 291, objected.
3:54:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concern about the requirement
for one appointment to be a member of an Alaska Native
organization. She indicated that her intent was to avoid
designation based on race or ethnicity. Nonetheless, she
concurred with the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault's (CDVSA's) desire to have an Alaska Native woman on the
council. Consequently, Amendment 1 would further define "rural
Alaska" to only include a population of 3,500 or less that is
connected by road or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks. She
believed that would capture the Bush Alaska perspective that was
needed on the board.
3:56:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY was unsure how redefining "rural Alaska"
would guarantee Alaska Native representation; further, she
opined that prescriptive language would be helpful in this case,
as it was apparent that the council was lacking specific
representation.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she was comfortable with the language
in Version G that advised the governor to consult the Alaska
Network on Domestic violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) and the
Alaska Native Women's Resource Center. She opined that from a
broader policy perspective, designating appointments based on
race or ethnicity could be dangerous. She reiterated that her
preference was to base eligibility on regionality.
3:58:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Version G represented the
CDVSA's recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN appreciated the intent of the proposed
amendment; nonetheless, he expressed his desire to trust the
board's recommendations. He believed that obtaining a Alaska
Native voice on the board was critical. For those reasons, he
expressed his opposition to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that a review of current boards and
commissions found 18 with a specific seat that was designated
for an Alaska Native representative. Further, a handful of
recently convened taskforces formed by the governor included the
same position. She stated her opposition to the Amendment 1,
explaining that the existing language, which called for a member
from a rural area, did not result in an Alaska Native
representative on the board. She believed that Amendment 1
would have the same result and reiterated the need for more
specific language.
4:02:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that advising the governor to
consult with the Native organizations was a big enough ask and
went far enough in expressing the legislature's recommendations.
He expressed his concern about designation based on race or
ethnicity.
4:03:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained her objection.
4:04:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that not all the boards and
commissions that called for Alaska Native representation had
been through the legislative process. She argued that although
the Equal Protection Clause had not been challenged, it could
come up in the future.
4:05:40 PM]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
4:06:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited final comments on HB 291.
4:06:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her appreciation for the council
and the work that they do.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS aligned himself with Representative Story's
comments.
4:07:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 291, Version 32-
LS1425\G, Radford, 3/2/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 291(STA) was moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 218-SMOKE/FIRE DAMPERS & SMOKE CTRL SYSTEMS
4:07:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 218, "An Act
relating to the inspection and testing of fire dampers, smoke
dampers, combination fire and smoke dampers, and smoke control
systems; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee, adopted as the working draft on 3/10/22, was proposed
CS, labeled 32-LS0931\W, Bannister, 3/7/22 ("Version W").]
4:08:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, provided introductory remarks on Version W. He
paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
As a result of Alaska's cold climate, nearly every
commercial, industrial, and public building must be
heated. The goal of House Bill 218 is to ensure that
the fire life safety components as part of the HVAC
systems in these buildings are functioning as
designed. These components include fire dampers, smoke
dampers, and smoke control systems. House Bill 218
requires technicians and contractors to obtain a
certification recognized by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) under the ISO/IEC 17024
standard to perform inspections and testing of fire
dampers, smoke dampers, and smoke control systems.
Alaska law follows the International Fire Code by
requiring the HVAC fire life safety components within
the commercial, industrial, and public buildings to be
inspected and tested consistent with the developed
standards of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). Currently, sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and
fire extinguishers in Alaska are inspected by a
technician and/or contractor that must be certified.
House Bill 218 would create a similar requirement for
a technician and/or contractor to perform periodic
inspections of fire dampers, smoke dampers, and smoke
control systems.
NFPA standards 80 and 105 require fire and smoke
dampers to be inspected within one year of initial
installation and every four years thereafter, except
for hospitals which must be inspected once every six
years. NFPA standard 92 requires dedicated smoke
control systems to be tested every six months and non-
dedicated smoke control systems to be tested annually.
House Bill 218 is a public safety bill that will help
ensure that the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning fire life safety components utilized and
installed in commercial, industrial, and public
structures in Alaska are safe and in good working
order.
4:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN considered a scenario in which a small
HVAC business wanted to get a technician certified. He asked
what that process would look like.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Schurig.
4:12:16 PM
JENS SCHURIG, Organizer, Sheet Metal Workers Local 23, said it
could be done in several ways: A mechanical engineer or a fire
protection engineer could be employed; the business could go
through the sheet metal workers union to get the individual
trained and certified; or the business could create its own
curriculum for testing and inspecting fire smoke dampers and
control systems and have it accredited by the American National
Standards Institute.
4:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the cost of creating a
curriculum.
MR. SCHURIG said it would depend on variety of factors,
including the number of employees and the extent of the
curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the cost going the union
route.
MR. SCHURIG said it would not cost the company anything to sign
up with the union; however, the company would have to pay its
employees "the package," which was prorated at 16 cents per hour
for training.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that union contractors were
automatically paid 16 cents per hour for all training, so it
wouldn't cost the contractor any additional money.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there was a method for
small operators to access the system and the appropriate
training.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN reiterated his interest in understanding
the cost of curriculum development for a small business. He
asked whether there was a provision for an individual to work
under a fire protection engineer.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there were other sources of
training for this kind of work outside the union.
MR. SCHURIG shared his understanding that out-of-state companies
offered the necessary training for the inspection and testing of
fire dampers, smoke dampers, and smoke control systems.
4:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern about the impact of the
proposed legislation on areas with fewer inspectors.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK imagined that the cost would be similar to
the existing cost for inspections of sprinkler systems and
separate inspections of fire alarm notifications.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether rural areas that lacked a
local mechanical engineer or fire protection engineer had
current protocols in place.
4:21:01 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
explained that if the bill were to pass, training availability
would be increased to allow for more people to get certified.
He deferred to Mr. Boothby to explain current practices.
4:21:44 PM
RICHARD BOOTHYBY, Alaska State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire
and Life Safety, Department of Public Safety (DPS), reported
that [building] owners were responsible for the testing of fire
dampers in a specific timeframe.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that currently, in rural
areas, the [building] owners were responsible for finding a
qualified person to perform the proper inspections.
MR. BOOTHBY confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that current standards identified
the correct process; however, it wasn't being followed, which
was the reason for the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how violations were handled and
reported.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said there were no reporting standards at
present. He noted the bill included reporting provisions.
MR. BOOTHBY said to date, he had not received any reported
violations since he began the job as fire marshal in 2019.
4:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that a business could ask
someone with working knowledge of the facilities, smoke dampers,
and equipment to conduct the inspection. He asked how many
people were qualified to conduct the inspections in Alaska at
present versus if the bill were to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK did not know how many mechanical engineers
with fire protection accreditation were in the state of Alaska
at this time. He noted that the legislation would require out-
of-state travel or online course work to get certified.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many people in Alaska had a
current fire and life safety certification.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK did not know the answer.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Schurig if he knew the answer.
MR. SCHURIG reported that there were 41 certified smoke damper
technicians in Alaska; however, there were additional mechanical
engineers and fire protection engineers who could also complete
the job, per the changes in Version W. He anticipated that the
number of certified smoke damper technicians would double in the
year of implementation if the bill were to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the number of deaths in
Alaska due to fire and smoke damper failure and asked whether
the bill would reduce that number.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Boothby.
MR. BOOTHBY said there were no reported fatalities from fire
system failure.
4:31:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked why the bill was limited to
mechanical engineers, as opposed to including civil engineers as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said there was a suggestion to include
electrical engineers; however, he didn't feel that it was
necessary to include different types of engineers, they don't
deal with the physical properties of fire dampers specifically.
4:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the wait time for an initial
fire inspection in a building.
MR. BOOTHBY answered 2-3 years for a normal inspection.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the timeline would be for
continued inspections if the bill were to pass.
MR. BOOTHBY shared his understanding that if the bill were to
pass, the state fire marshal's office would no longer do the
inspections. Instead, those performing the inspections would
notify the fire marshal of any failures or issues and corrective
action would be taken.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE considered a scenario in which a building
did not pass the initial inspection. She asked what the
corrective action would entail.
MR. BOOTHBY said typically, failures or issues with fire systems
should be fixed within 30-60 days.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a business would be shut down
if it did not pass the inspection.
MR. BOOTHBY said closing the building would be a last resort.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how often that occurred.
MR. BOOTHBY said not very often, adding that the goal was
compliance rather than building closure.
4:36:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 218.
4:36:59 PM
ED MARTIN expressed his surprise that the invited testifiers did
not have an answer to all of the committee member's questions.
In response to Representative Kaufman's questions about training
and certification, he reported that it took one year and three
months for his son's CDL school to create a curriculum. He
opined that the bill would create a monopolized system for
certain individuals and that the required training would be
difficult to access for the private sector.
4:40:40 PM
DON JAGER, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA), stated that
after reviewing the bill, the fire chiefs voted in opposition to
HB 218 at AFCA's annual meeting. He said AFCA supported
increasing fire safety at every opportunity; however, the bill
missed the mark by the inspector certification requirements, he
opined. If pass, the bill would place unfunded enforcement
liability on all jurisdictions across the state due to the
required certification. He explained that the fire chiefs
opposed the bill because the certification requirement would
create a limited pool of inspectors in a vast state. Further,
the state fire marshal and local municipalities already had the
authority to adopt inspection requirements to the fire code,
making the legislation redundant, he opined. He believed that
the lack of fire losses or fatalities indicated that this was
not a significant problem in Alaska. He pointed out that if
passed, the bill would create a large number of buildings across
the state that were no longer in compliance with fire code based
on inspector certification. In conclusion, he requested that
the inspection authority remain with the state fire marshal and
local municipalities to regulate.
4:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Mr. Jager had considered the
CSHB 218, Version W, [adopted 3/10/22].
MR. JAGER said he had not.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she would appreciate further feedback
from AFCA on Version W.
4:43:57 PM
BEN ANGLEN shared that in his experience, fire dampers were
often propped open with a screw or some other contraption due to
a lack of training, which resulted in damper malfunction in the
case of a catastrophic fire. From his perspective, he said, the
codes were not being met.
4:46:41 PM
MR. SCHURIG emphasized that this was a public safety bill. He
anecdotally reported that the vast majority of fire dampers were
not working. He stated that the bill would essentially mandate
training, thereby initiating an informational campaign, which
would create more knowledgeable and capable individuals. He
reiterated his belief that HB 218 would fix the problem.
Further, he pointed out that there were enough engineers in
Alaska to do this work, adding that eventually, the training
would be offered to everyone.
4:49:11 PM
JUSTIN CARPENTER, Service Technician, Cool Air Mechanical; Sheet
Metal Union Local 23, shared his experience testing smoke and
fire dampers across the state, noting that the majority did not
function properly. He concluded that proper training was
lacking.
4:51:21 PM
CHRIS MILLER, Alaska Professional Design Council, stated his
opposition to the bill, opining that the statutory language
would be redundant, as fire departments were already required to
perform these inspections. Nonetheless, he agreed that the
education and training on fire safety life systems could be
improved upon.
4:53:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Version W, which would allow
mechanical engineers to perform the inspections, changed Mr.
Miller's position on the bill.
MR. MILLER answered no; nonetheless, he acknowledged that the
provision in question was an improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to page 2, line 19 of
Version W and asked whether the language should be broadened by
replacing "mechanical engineer" with "engineer".
MR. MILLER pointed out that "architect" would work too, as the
systems could be inspected and understood by other types of
technicians. He recommended keeping it as broad as possible.
4:56:21 PM
CHRISTINE NESS, Senior Fire Protection Engineer, in response to
Mr. Miller, pointed out that an architect may not be skilled in
the mechanical systems that were required for this type of work.
She opined that fire and smoke damper installers should be
responsible for testing and installing these systems.
4:57:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony and announced that
the bill was held over.
HB 316-STANDARDIZED IMPROVEMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
4:58:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act providing for a
standardized improvement tracking system for state agencies."
4:58:17 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:58:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, prime sponsor, introduced HB 316. He
indicated that the bill would create an action tracker within
the executive branch that would track critical items in a
methodical way to allow for better organization.
5:00:14 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime
sponsor of HB 316, summarized the sponsor statement [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows:
HB 316 addresses the need for a standardized
improvement tracking system throughout the executive
branch. Audit findings and internal issues have been
growing in quantity, age, and magnitude across
Alaska's State Government meaning that something must
be done to improve outcomes.
Organizations seeking to refine and optimize their
operations to improve outcomes do so using a variety
of methods, but action trackers are one of the most
important tools in the continuous improvement toolkit.
Having a formal tracking system in place enables
organizations to identify opportunities for
improvement and track them to completion. Each
improvement opportunity has merit and should be
reviewed, but not all can be worked to completion. A
select few improvement opportunities will be deemed
priorities based on impacts to operations, a rough
cost/benefit analysis, age of issue, and resources
available.
These high-priority improvement opportunities will
then be treated like a project with one or multiple
actions and a scheduled completion date. This tracking
system will make next steps and progress visible which
will lead to realized benefits across state
government.
Reports will also include success stories of
opportunities and actions that have been completed.
These successes should be celebrated, and the
executive branch could likely find creative ways to
incentivize the closure of these items.
Action items registered in such a system are often
referred to as corrective and preventative actions,
sometimes using the acronym CA/PA, with corrective
action referring to actions taken to remedy what has
already occurred, while preventative actions are taken
to prevent a future occurrence.
The benefits of a standardized system will be
dependent upon the extent to which the organization
uses the system, but there is a possibility to
increase transparency and accountability across
agencies and programs while improving the function of
the organization and delivery of value to customers of
various services.
MR. HARVEY directed attention to the PowerPoint presentation on
HB 316 [hard copy included in the committee packet], beginning
on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
OVERVIEW
Problem Statement: Audit Findings and internal issues
grow in quantity and in magnitude when there is not a
standardized system in place to facilitate planning
and progression of actions.
Improvement Tracking System purpose
Improvement Tracking System core attributes
Government Examples
Committee Substitute in-progress
5:01:20 PM
MR. HARVEY continued to slide 3, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
PURPOSE
A standardized improvement tracking system for each
state agency
Must enable tracking of status, progress, and closure
of actions
Actions may arise from
• Audit findings
• Internal Corrective and preventive action
requests
• Improvement opportunities identified by agency
employees
• Opportunities by other internal or external
auditors
• Opportunities identified by customers
• Opportunities identified by customers
5:02:17 PM
MR. HARVEY turned to slide 4, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
IMPROVEMENT TRACKINGSYSTEM MUST:
Include the ability to uniquely track each improvement
opportunity for each state agency
Validate each opportunity to check whether it is
unique or exists in the system in some form
Identify various elements which are important when
pursuing prioritization and closure of opportunities
Provide mechanism for state agencies to
• Perform a Root Cause Analysis, determine
corrective actions, develop an implementation
schedule, and evaluate implementation
Ensure evaluation of effectiveness of plans and assess
improvements
Provide for status reports to relevant stakeholders
5:03:20 PM
MR. HARVEY advanced to slide 5, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
STATUS REPORTING
Quarterly status reports to heads of agencies
Annual status reports from the Governor to the
legislature
Reports must include:
• Quantity of open and closed items
• Aging of items approaching or beyond scheduled
completion date
• Cost or benefit of items closed during the
reporting period and fiscal year to date
• Details of higher criticality items closed within
reporting period
• Details of higher criticality items extended or
expected to extend beyond original due date
• Action plans for higher criticality items beyond
their scheduled closure date
5:04:13 PM
MR. HARVEY proceeded to slide 6, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
GAO EXAMPLE
Priority Recommendations
• As GAO issues reports/testimonies, included
recommendations are tracked in this database
• Certain recommendations are deemed priority
recommendations
Action Tracker
• These priority recommendations are assigned
actions, which are tracked and progressed in the
action tracker
Month-In-Review
• A summary of audits, reports, progress, and more
5:05:24 PM
MR. HARVEY continued to slide 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
GAO EXAMPLE
Priority Recommendations
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-
testimonies/recommendations-database
Action Tracker
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-testimonies/action-
tracker
Month-In-Review
• https://www.gao.gov/reports-testimonies/month-in-
review
5:05:31 PM
MR. HARVEY concluded on slide 8, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE IN PROGRESS
Requested Changes to reduce the administrative burden
and increase effectiveness of the system
Prioritize opportunities and only progress high-
priority, actionable opportunities that can be
completed with available resources
Refine the list in the newly created AS 44.66.100
(c)(3)
• Reducing this list to critical components and
adding an open-ended component which would allow
the system administrator to add information as
deemed necessary
Add a requirement to publicize high-priority
opportunities/actions and quarterly reports on a
single website
5:06:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the CS was being
drafted.
MR. HARVEY answered yes.
5:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the reporting requirements would
be made available on a website and whether that would be
clarified in the CS.
MR. HARVEY said the forthcoming CS would clarify that the status
reports would be made available on a website.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the website already existed
or whether it needed to be created.
MR. HARVEY said that had not been decided upon, adding that the
Office of Management & Budget's (OMB's) website was being
considered, as well as other ideas.
5:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked which state agencies had looked over
this plan and whether they had indicated that the administrative
burden was too high, thus necessitating the forthcoming CS.
MR. HARVEY said the bill had been socialized with OMB and a
legislative auditor. He explained that the bill in its current
form suggested that the goal was to track everything, which was
not the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested to hear from state agencies at a
future bill hearing about how the proposed legislation would
impact them.
5:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there was a fiscal note.
MR. HARVEY said it was forthcoming.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether a fiscal note would be
submitted from every state department.
MR. HARVEY did not know which departments would be submitting a
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN believed that there was merit to the
notion of improving the system; however, he pointed out that
when corporations implemented this type of system, it required a
significant outlay of time and money. He opined that in
reality, implementing such a system would be difficult.
5:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether conversations were had with
the administration or the Department of Administration (DOA)
regarding the directive to streamline state agencies, which
seemed like a similar ask.
MR. HARVEY responded that certain departments had implemented
the departmental improvement directive more than others, which
was why a standardized system would help, he opined. He noted
that the bill proposed a middle ground between departments that
had implemented the directive in a large-scale way and those
that had done little to streamline.
5:12:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 316 was held over.
HB 309-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
5:13:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 309, "An Act exempting candidates for
municipal office and municipal office holders in municipalities
with a population of 15,000 or less from financial or business
interest reporting requirements; relating to campaign finance
reporting by certain groups; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 309(CRA).]
5:13:41 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:14:15 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor, presented the sponsor statement for CSHB
309(CRA), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 309 seeks to remedy two issues that will make the
Alaska Public Offices Commission more effective.
HB 309 provides a campaign disclosure reporting
exemption for smaller groups who don't intend to raise
or spend more than $2,500 in a calendar year ($5,000
during an 18-month election cycle). The bill also
exempts these groups from the electronic filing
requirement for these reports. This is beneficial as
smaller groups generally require much more APOC staff
time and interaction because they are usually novices
who are only interested in a single topic on a ballot,
unlike ongoing groups that participate every year. A
similar exemption already exists for judicial
retention candidates and municipal candidates.
HB 309 would also exempt smaller communities
(population of 15,000 or less), from Public Official
Financial Disclosure (POFD) reporting requirements.
There is already a minimum population exemption for
campaign disclosures, but none for a POFD filing. Many
of the smaller communities who struggle with clerk
turnover, connectivity, and regular mail service often
find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to
timely notifications and filing. This results in
disproportionate civil penalties for these rural areas
where most, if not all, of their municipal officers
are serving in a volunteer capacity.
5:16:22 PM
MS. GROSS noted that the bill was 10 sections long; however,
only three - Section 1, Section 2, and Section 5 - were
substantive. She directed attention to the PowerPoint
presentation on HB 309 [hard copy included in the committee
packet], beginning on slide 1, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
HB 309
There already exists an exemption from POFD filing
requirements for candidatesrunning for municipal
office in municipalities with populations of 1000 or
less.
There is NOT currently any population threshold
exemption for POFD filing requirements for elected or
appointed municipal officers.
This is the change we are making in Section 5 of HB
309 by adding a POFD reporting threshold for
candidates and elected/appointed municipal officers in
municipalities with populations of 15,000 or less.
5:18:38 PM
MS. GROSS provided a comparative analysis of current law and HB
309 on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 309 BEFORE AND AFTER
Current Law
• All municipal candidates in municipalities with
populations of 1,000 and above subject to POFD filing
requirements.
• All municipal officials in communities of any size,
who have not opted out, are subject to POFD filing
requirements (currently 30 municipalities).
Under HB 309
• All candidates and municipal officials I
municipalities with populations of 15,000 or less are
EXEMPT from POFD filing requirements.
• 25 municipalities formerly subject to POFD filing
requirements, now exempt.
• 5 municipalities still subject to POFD filing
requirements for both municipal candidates and
officials:
• Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Fairbanks
North Star Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and
Juneau City and Borough still
5:20:04 PM
MS. GROSS turned to slide 3, which provided a list of
municipalities that had opted out of the public official
financial disclosure (POFD) filing requirements for municipal
candidates and officers (136 total). She concluded on slide 4,
which listed the municipalities currently subject to POFD filing
requirements (30 total). The 25 municipalities (shown in red)
would be exempt from POFD filing requirements for candidates and
elected officials if HB 309 were to pass. It would leave 5
municipalities (shown in black) still subject to POFD filing
requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed questions from committee members.
5:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, referring to slide 4, asked whether the
25 municipalities weren't allowed to opt out or whether they
chose not to opt out.
MS. GROSS shared her understanding that they chose not to opt
out.
5:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if the 25 municipalities
decided to file the opt-out provisions, the 5 larger
municipalities could choose not to opt out without passing the
legislation.
MS. GROSS confirmed, adding that theoretically, all 30
communities on slide 4 could choose to file the opt-out
provisions.
5:22:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Fairbanks was excluded from
the list because the city had chosen to opt out.
MS. GROSS confirmed that Fairbanks had already opted out of the
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the 25 municipalities could
opt back in if the bill were to pass.
MS. GROSS believe that the answer was yes. She deferred to Ms.
Hebdon for further explanation.
5:23:19 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said there was nothing in statute that would
preclude the 25 communities, which were exempted under HB 309
from the POFD filing requirements, from self-directing their own
financial disclosure reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether they could opt in using the
state's website.
MS. HEBDON said in theory, yes.
5:25:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was confused. She asked why the
legislature would take action on this if the communities could
already choose to opt out.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that question was a good segway into
invited testimony. He welcomed Clay Walker, the mayor of the
Denali Borough.
5:26:00 PM
CLAY WALKER, Mayor, Denali Borough, argued that transparency was
important to ensure public trust; further that policy should
encourage public service. He explained that the current
financial disclosure process was onerous and invasive for small
municipalities. He recalled that many communities, including
the Denali Borough, opted out when the state changed its
financial disclosure laws making them more burdensome. He
reported that the Denali Borough created its own financial
disclosure form, which was based on the state's prior financial
disclosure form from 1999. He explained that the form included
associations and sources of revenue but excluded details such as
loan amounts and children's revenue. He recommended exempting
municipalities, thus allowing them the ability to self-govern.
5:29:57 PM
JOHN HANDELAND, Mayor, Nome, expressed his support for HB 309
and urged its passage from committee. Additionally, he aligned
his comments with Mayor Walker's testimony, noting that Nome was
one of few communities that chose not to opt out because the
municipality didn't realize it was an option. He opined that
the reporting requirements had an adverse effect on people's
involvement in government service. He believed that Alaskan's
value their right to privacy. He anecdotally reported that only
one or two citizens had ever requested a physical copy of the
disclosure report in Nome, surmising that people make their
decisions based on other factors. He suggested amending the
effective date to July 1, 2022.
5:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Nome would choose to opt out
since realizing it was an option, as permitted under current
statute.
MAYOR HANDELAND said it would be something to consider.
5:35:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she tended to favor transparency and
believed that citizens had the right to know who their public
officials were and what their financial interest were. She
asked how the process could be fixed to better accommodate
individuals seeking public office.
MAYOR HANDELAND recommended setting up a local process for
financial disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether part of the issue was that the
reports were public and questioned whether keeping them private
would be a solution.
MAYOR HANDELAND agreed that keeping the financial disclosures
private would help. Further, he argued that some of the
categories on the form weren't necessary, pointing out that in
congress, income was reported by range.
5:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the City of Nome practiced
recusal from votes if there was a conflict of interest.
MAYOR HANDELAND answered yes, members must declare a conflict of
interest.
5:48:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the civil penalties for a
late filer.
MS. HEBDON answered that the maximum civil penalty daily rate
was $10 for a public official's financial disclosure.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many civil penalties had been
assessed for municipal filers in years passed.
MS. HEBDON was unsure. She offered to follow up with the
requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how the POFD process differed for
municipal candidates versus elected officials.
MS. HEBDON stated that APOC published a POFD for the following
people on its website: the governor, lieutenant governor, state
legislators, and candidates for state municipal offices. She
noted that for anyone excluded from those categories, the POFD
would not be published on APOC's website; however, it was a
public document and could be obtained upon request.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the commission's rational for
excluding certain people's POFD from the website
MS. HEBDON said the rationale was the potential for a chilling
effect on volunteer boards and commissions; difficulty in
recruiting appointed members of the executive branch; and
matters of security for judicial officers.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many annual public requests were
received for the POFDs not published on the website.
MS. HEBDON answered less than 10, noting that the majority of
public POFD requests were for executive and judicial branch
officials.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was a single instance
of a municipal POFD request in Ms. Hebdon's tenure at APOC.
MS. HEBDON answered no, she could not recall any requests for
municipal POFDs.
5:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why CSHB 309(CRA) would exempt groups
that raised or expended no more than $2,500 in a calendar year.
5:54:07 PM
MS. GROSS deferred to Ms. Hebdon.
MS. HEBDON shared her understanding that the purpose was to
exempt and unburden smaller groups that formed around a local
grassroots ballot proposition, which didn't typically continue
after one specified election but required a significant amount
of staff time and intricate reporting. She said it was similar
to an existing exemption for local candidates who didn't intend
on having a lot of financial activity.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether $2,500 was sufficient for
these types of groups.
MS. HEBDON said $2,500 was reached based on the current
exemption that existed for candidates, as previously mentioned.
5:56:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented on small grassroots groups and
expressed his support for excluding them so as to avoid
burdening them with financial disclosure requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote on his
experience participating in small group efforts in Sitka, noting
that the APOC requirements were a significant dissuasion.
5:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled that the Denali Borough had
created its own financial disclosure form. She asked whether
other municipalities had done the same.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that the North Slope Borough had
determined that they wanted POFD disclosure requirements. He
offered to follow up with more information.
MAYOR WALKER did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested a copy of the form used by the
Denali Borough.
6:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that the Homer City Council
required a more thorough financial disclosure than the state.
She argued that local municipalities would be fully capable of
self-governance on this issue if the state were to remove its
requirements.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said it was clear that current POFD
requirements were not working, as more than 80 communities had
opted out. He questioned the purpose of a POFD that sits unused
in a city office building. He pointed out that if the
legislature decided to make them publicly available, so that the
goal of transparency was fulfilled, there would also have to be
an awareness that a chilling effect may follow.
6:05:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 309(CRA) was held over.
6:05:31 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:05
p.m.