ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 4, 2021
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair (via Teams)
Senator Mia Costello (via Teams)
Senator Roger Holland (via Teams)
Senator Scott Kawasaki (via Teams)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to the duration of a regular session of the
legislature; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3(JUD)
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration;
relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for
ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating
as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening
or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 39(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act establishing the committee on nullification of federal
laws; and providing a directive to the lieutenant governor."
- MOVED SB 118 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under
the Legislative Ethics Act."
- MOVED CSSB 31(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act establishing the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee."
- MOVED SB 120 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Urging the United States Congress to repeal the Windfall
Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset of the
Social Security Act.
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 109
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 126
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL 90 DAY SESSION LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
04/16/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/21 (S) STA, FIN
04/29/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/29/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 5AM
03/08/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/08/21 (H) NR: TARR
03/08/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, VANCE,
KAUFMAN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
03/17/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2AM
03/20/21 (H) DP: VANCE, DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS,
SNYDER, CLAMAN
03/20/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN, KURKA
04/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 3(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/26/21 (S) MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLICATION NOTICE,
RULE 23 FAILED Y12 N7 E1
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 39
SHORT TITLE: BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA, JUD
01/26/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/26/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/21 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/11/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/25/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/30/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/01/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/08/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/15/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/21/21 (S) STA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
04/22/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/21 (S) STA AT 6:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 118
SHORT TITLE: CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/13/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 31
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA, JUD
03/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 120
SHORT TITLE: ADMIN. REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) STA, FIN
04/13/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/29/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/29/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SJR 12
SHORT TITLE: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT REDUCTION REPEAL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
03/29/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/21 (S) STA, FIN
04/27/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/27/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 126.
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 126 on behalf of the sponsor.
ADAM HYKES, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested an amendment to SB 126.
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 3.
ERIC CORDERRO, Staff
Representative DeLena Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 3 on behalf of the sponsor.
MARK BREUNIG, Chief Technology Officer
Office of Information Technology
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
related to HB 3.
PETER HOUSE, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3.
SCOTT OGAN, Staff
Senator Mike Shower
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
SB 31.
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 120, stated that he
supports anything that will help reduce regulations and allow
the economy thrive; stated support for SB 31; and stated
opposition to SB 126.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 12.
TREVOR BAILEY, Staff
Senator Tom Begich
former Intern to Senator Bill Wielechowski
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint to introduce SJR 12
on behalf of the sponsor.
TOM KLAAMEYER, President
NEA Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 12 by invitation.
RICHARD SEWELL representing self
Anchorage Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
CARMEN RUSSO, representing self
Anderson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
MITCHELL ROTH, representing self
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
SUSAN FREEL, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
CATHY MCDORQUODALE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
ROBERT SEWARD, representing self
Newark, Delaware
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
NADINE LEFEBVRE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
CAROL WATERS, retired educator representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
KIMBERLY METCALFE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
STEVEN CLICK, representing self
California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
JOHN DART, representing self
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
BARBARA MCNINCH, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
JOY GREEN, representing self
Kona, HI
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
LADAWN DRUCE, Staff
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 12.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:32:16 PM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Reinbold, Holland, Kawasaki (all via Teams),
and Chair Shower. Senator Costello joined the meeting remotely
soon thereafter.
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the remote meeting protocols, including
the roll call to show the presence and location of the committee
members:
SENATOR HOLLAND, Capitol room 113, SENATOR KAWASAKI, Capitol
room 7, SENATOR REINBOLD, Capitol room 427, and CHAIR SHOWER, in
the Butrovich room, Capitol 205. SENATOR COSTELLO joined shortly
thereafter from Capitol room 119.
SB 126-REPEAL 90 DAY SESSION LIMIT
3:34:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to the duration of a regular session of the
legislature; and providing for an effective date."
3:34:42 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 126, stated that the Alaska Constitution
recognizes a 120-day legislative session. In 1986, the
legislature met longer than 120 days and passed 29 bills after
the midnight deadline. After a court challenge, the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled that day one is ceremonial and therefore
sessions are 121 days.
SENATOR STEVENS provided an historical perspective of the 90-day
session limit. He explained that in 2006, two legislators
spearheaded a ballot initiative to end sessions after 90 days to
accommodate their personal needs as a fisherman and an hotelier.
The initiative narrowly passed, but the arguments used to pass
it have proven to be untrue. He offered his belief that the 90-
day sessions do not allow time for the legislature to do its
work and the short duration allows the executive branch and
lobbyists to dominate. The legislature needs relief from the
statutory constraint of a 90-day session to return to the 120
days set forth in the Alaska Constitution. He deferred further
introduction to Mr. Lamkin.
3:37:33 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that SB 126 simply repeals
AS 24.05.150(b), which passed in 2006 and became effective in
2008, establishing a 90-day session. The bill restores the 120-
day session, which is in line with the Alaska Constitution. [The
Alaska Supreme Court ruled that day one of the legislative
session is ceremonial and sessions therefore are 121 days.
3:38:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recognized that Senator Costello had joined the
meeting on Teams. He asked her to state her presence and
location.
SENATOR COSTELLO identified herself and stated that she was in
her office, Capitol room 119.
MR. LAMKIN began the PowerPoint presentation on SB 126 starting
with the background and history. He explained that from 1913 to
1958, the Territorial Legislature met biennially for 60 days. A
60-day session was debated during the 1958 Constitutional
Convention but it was voted down by a 20:32 vote. Without a
limit, sessions were of varied length. In 1983 HJR 2 passed and
the issue was placed on the ballot. The measure passed in 1984
with roughly 60 percent in favor of a 120-day limit. It passed
with a margin of 52,000 votes. The 120-day sessions continued
until 2007 when the 2006 ballot initiative pursuing a 90-day
session became effective.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if a pattern for session length emerged based
on whether it was an election year or not.
3:40:54 PM
MR LAMKIN said he had several graphs later in the presentation
that would answer the question. He turned to slide 3 that
depicts the official results from the November 2006 vote. He
highlighted that this election was the third lowest turnout
since 1976. The measure passed with a 3,800 vote margin and
6,800 of the voters took a ballot but did not vote on this
issue. He offered his perspective that those who did not vote on
the issue perhaps thought that the legislature should make the
decision.
3:41:43 PM
MR. LAMKIN displayed an excerpt from the 2006 election pamphlet
showing the summary of the measure and the statement in support
a 90-day session. A primary theme was that there would be a
savings of 30 days of per diem and legislative operating
expenses. However, there has been no change in the legislative
budget. Monies were transferred from the session budget to the
interim budget in anticipation of more interim meetings and
special sessions, and the data shows this has happened. In fact,
travel, per diem, and technical expenses associated with holding
more interim meetings and special sessions have all increased.
The promised cost savings have been a wash.
3:43:31 PM
MR. LAMKIN said petition organizers circulated a graph showing
that 27 other states have a shorter session than Alaska but it
did not demonstrate the difference between Alaska's 120
"calendar" legislative days and states with "session"
legislative days that only count the days the legislature is on
the floor. For example, Hawaii has a 60-day legislative session
but it met for 100 calendar days in 2020-2021. Indiana meets for
60 legislative days in odd years and 30 legislative days in even
years but they just adjourned after meeting for 116 calendar
days. He described the supporting argument as a twist on the
facts.
3:45:05 PM
MR. LAMKIN displayed a bar graph of the same data and pointed
out that Alaska is squarely in the middle of the states and that
SB 126 maintains that position. He said every state has its own
reasons for setting the length of its legislative sessions but
it does not matter.
He turned to a graph of Alaska's legislative session days from
1970 to 2019. Responding to an earlier question, he confirmed
that sessions tend to be shorter in election years. He directed
attention to the wide variation in data points when there was no
limit. In response to 160-day legislative sessions, the voters
approved HJR 2 and the 120-day session took effect in 1984. He
pointed to the relatively stable data points from 1984 to 2005
and highlighted that session lengths were again sporadic after
the 90-day session took effect. He said he would argue that this
graph illustrates that the 120-day session brought stability to
the legislative process.
3:47:02 PM
MR. LAMKIN said the third point in support of the 90-day session
was that since 1990, 24 pieces of legislation were introduced
but did not reach the floor in either body. He pointed out that
legislation that has no chance of passing is introduced all the
time; it is the legislature's prerogative to act or not act on
any issue. Performance should not be based on the number of
bills passed. He cited examples of perennial issues including
abortion that has been introduced 67 times since 1990 and move
the Capitol that has been introduced 31 times since 1990.
Additional issues include oil and gas taxation, subsistence,
pre-K, mining taxes, and compulsory school age. He said the
sponsors' logic was not well founded.
MR. LAMKIN pointed out that a 90-day session in no way restricts
the legislature from calling itself into special session. The
constitutional framers wanted to balance the power of state
government by extending this authority to the legislature but it
takes a two-thirds vote of each body. He pointed to the line
graph on slide 18 of the total days the Alaska Legislature has
spent in special session from 1959 to 2019. The governor has
called a special session 37 times and the average duration was
16 days. The legislature called itself into special session 8
times and the average duration was 8 days. He highlighted that
the frequency and length of the special sessions has increased
substantially since 2006 when the 90-day session took effect.
3:50:11 PM
MR. LAMKIN said the petition organizers also argued that
reducing the length of the session to 90 days would encourage
more people to run for office. He directed attention to the
graph on the next slide that depicts the number of candidates
over the past 60 years. On average, 152 candidates ran for a
legislative seat in the 1960 to 2020 elections and 160
candidates ran in elections from 1960 to 2007. Since 2008 when
the 90-day session took effect, 125 candidates have run for
office, which he said is clear evidence that the 90-day session
has not increased the candidate pool.
MR. LAMKIN said he is a staunch proponent of balancing power
between the people's branch of government and the executive
branch and he believes the 90-day session directly shifts power
from the legislative to the executive branch. The 90-day session
is not working, he said.
3:53:11 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that he believed in the 2006
initiative and he helped collect signatures, but it does not
work the way it was intended. He said he tends to support the
bill but he would like more discussion.
3:54:07 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony SB 126
3:54:28 PM
ADAM HYKES, representing self, Homer, Alaska, said the 90-day
limit has rarely been met but he believes it is unwise to remove
all constraints. He proposed the committee amend to bill to
create a 120-day limit instead of simply removing the 90-day
limit. He said he expects legislators to be professional and
work together to achieve that end. He said he would not support
SB 126 without the amendment.
MR. LAMKIN said SB 126 would repeal the 90-day session in
statute, but per the Alaska Constitution the session limit would
remain 120 days.
3:56:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 126. He advised that
written testimony on all the bills heard today could be sent to
ssta@akleg.gov.
SENATOR COSTELLO stated support for Mr. Hykes' suggestion. She
offered her belief that the 90-day session costs more and adds
uncertainty. She said she views aligning the statute with the
constitution as a streamlining measure. She said she would be
willing to offering the amendment herself or with Senator
Kawasaki.
3:58:56 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND stated support for the measure.
3:59:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 126 in committee.
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
3:59:42 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 3(JUD), "An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
4:00:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 3, stated that the current Alaska statutes
are vague regarding whether a cyber attack could elicit an
emergency declaration. She cited examples to illustrate that
cyber threats are pervasive and should be treated seriously. The
Alaska Court System just this week had to disconnect from the
internet after a malware attack. Several years ago the
Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough shut down after a cyber
attack disrupted day-to-day service operations. She noted that
the City of Valdez was also the target of a ransomware attack
that was costly to resolve. Additionally, she reported that
several states declared emergencies after cyber attacks
disrupted government operations. Most recently, a water plant
was targeted, but the authorities kept it safe. She summarized
that by adding cyber security attacks to the definition of
disaster, the state would be able to use disaster relief funds,
apply for federal funds, and have access to other federal
resources that might otherwise not be available for disaster
preparedness planning.
She advised that her staff would go over the language in the
bill and the changes that were made in the House Judiciary
Committee.
4:02:51 PM
ERIC CORDERRO, Staff, Representative DeLena Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that HB 3 updates the
Alaska Disaster Act by adding "cybersecurity attack" to the
definitions in the disaster statutes. He recounted that the
three changes to the original bill added "political subdivision"
throughout the new subparagraph (F) to make it clear that all
political subdivisions of the state are included. The definition
of "critical infrastructure" was added because the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and the Alaska Department of
Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA) both use this term. Third,
the word "event" replaced the word "vulnerability" because it
provides more inclusive coverage of potential issues.
MR. CORDERRO reviewed the primary areas of the new subparagraph
(F) to [AS 26.23.900(2).] It read as follows:
(F) a cyber attack that affects critical
infrastructure in the state, an information system
owned or operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, information that is stored
on, processed by, or transmitted on an information
system owned or operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, or a credible threat of an
imminent cyber attack or cyber event that the
commissioner of administration or commissioner's
designee certifies to the governor has a high
probability of occurring in the near future; the
certification must be based on specific information
that critical infrastructure in the state, an
information system owned or operated by the state or a
political subdivision of the state, or information
that is stored on, processed by, or transmitted on an
information system owned or operated by the state or a
political subdivision of the state may be affected; in
this subparagraph, "critical infrastructure" means
systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so
vital to the state that the incapacity or destruction
of the systems and assets would have a debilitating
effect on security, state economic security, state
public health or safety, or any combination of those
matters;
4:05:35 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI mentioned the Alaska Court System and Mat-Su
Borough cyber attacks and asked if passage of HB 3 would qualify
the governor to use subparagraph (F) under the Alaska Disaster
Act.
MR. CORDERRO answered that the attack would need to be
widespread and imminent and meet the other criteria set out in
the Alaska Disaster Act. He offered his understanding that the
borough was able to declare an emergency, but the statute was
too vague for the attack to qualify for a statewide declaration.
He deferred further explanation to Mark Breunig.
4:07:09 PM
MARK BREUNIG, Chief Technology Officer, Office of Information
Technology, Department of Administration, Juneau, Alaska, said
the Mat-Su Borough appropriately declared a disaster because the
attack presented significant risk to health and safety. He
confirmed that attacks that are widespread in scope and severity
and present high risk to critical infrastructure meet the
benchmarks for the governor to be able to declare a disaster.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the data breach the Division of
Elections experienced during the last election cycle would allow
the governor to implement the Alaska Disaster Act because state
economic security was potentially in jeopardy and it is an asset
of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON read the definition of "disaster" on page
1 of the bill and segued to the Mat-Su Borough cyber attack. She
said it took quite a while for the FBI to start a forensic
investigation after that attack because the current statute does
not cover cyber attacks. She questioned whether that answered
the question.
4:10:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said his reading was that the answer would be "no"
because it was not actual damage, injury, death, or the other
qualifiers. He called it a priority rather than a disaster.
SENATOR KAWASAKI expressed satisfaction with the responses.
4:11:15 PM
MR. CORDERO directed attention to the handout in the packet of
the list of critical infrastructure, which would be considered
in determining whether an event rose to the level of a disaster.
He read some of the items on the list.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for the bill then asked whether
the timeframe and intention mattered. She cited a hypothetical
example of a cruise ship anchor accidentally severing a
communication cable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that would be an accident, not a
cyber attack. She said there is a national framework for what
constitutes a disaster and it would include things like an
attack on the power grid or the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
MR. CORDERO added that it depends on the circumstances of each
event. As a general rule, he said it is bad actors trying to
infiltrate, suspend, or wreak havoc on a system.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that the governor always has the ability
to declare a disaster and the bill does not change that. HB 3
specifically relates to a disaster stemming from a cyber attack.
4:15:00 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked the sponsor if she introduced the bill by
request.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered no; she initially filed the bill
two years ago after she learned about the Mat-Su Borough attack
and the difficulties associated with the clean up after the
attack.
4:17:06 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on HB 3.
4:17:21 PM
PETER HOUSE, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated support
for HB 3. He advised that his experience as a cybersecurity
professional who worked on the Mat-Su Borough and other such
incidents is that the number of attacks are increasing. He
reported a 50-70 percent increase in attacks on organizations
throughout Alaska in 2020 and the number seems to be even higher
so far in 2021. He offered his belief that any effort that
supports the ability to respond to attacks that threaten the
state's infrastructure is worthy.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he believes the state should focus time
and resources on a path to address cyber attacks that include
new technologies, consolidation of resources, or engaging
outside venders, like the Permanent Fund does, in order to
protect the resources in the state.
MR. HOUSE agreed and added that a mix if not all those elements
are necessary to improve the cybersecurity posture in the state.
4:19:31 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on HB 3 and held the bill
in committee.
SB 39-BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
4:19:56 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration;
relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for
ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating
as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening
or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
4:20:20 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report CSSB 39, work order 32-LS0204\O
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
4:20:39 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected. He stated he did not support the bill
despite the changes in the last committee substitute. The bill
still encourages the Division of Elections to use block chain
voting, which has not been thoroughly vetted and is not
foolproof. He pointed out that the existing election system does
work, although it needs refinements. He acknowledged that the
system was vulnerable to hacking but pointed out that the
Russian block chain e-voting system was also hacked in June 2020
so it is not foolproof. He said it is not appropriate to change
systems right now, particularly without DOE speaking to the
issues it can fix without the new system.
SENATOR KAWASAKI acknowledged that there were good ideas in the
bill and said he appreciated the sponsor and his staff helping
with a couple of his amendments like long-term absentee voting.
He expressed hope that the next committees of referral would
refine some of the language in the bill and restated that he
opposed moving the bill.
4:23:07 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he appreciated the comments but he wanted to
clarify that the bill does not specifically call for the use of
block chain. He advised that his office was working closely with
Representative Tuck on his version of the bill and predicted
that the final version would be a blend of the two.
4:23:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Reinbold, Costello,
Holland, and Chair Shower voted in favor of the motion to move
SB 39 from committee and Senator Kawasaki voted against it.
Therefore, the motion passed by a 4:1 vote and CSSB 39(STA)
moved from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SENATOR COSTELLO highlighted that the CS for SB 39 was quite
different from the initial bill. She offered her belief that the
current version would modernize the voting system with
provisions for chain of custody for a ballot, ballot curing, and
updated voter rolls.
SB 118-CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
4:25:59 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act establishing the committee on nullification of federal
laws; and providing a directive to the lieutenant governor."
SENATOR REINBOLD, speaking as sponsor of SB 118, summarized that
the bill establishes a 14-member bicameral, bipartisan committee
to evaluate federal regulations, statutes, and executive orders
to see whether the federal government has exceeded its
constitutional boundaries. If the committee finds this is the
case, it can nullify in part or whole the offending regulation,
statute, or executive order. A concurrent resolution would make
the nullification more formal.
4:27:58 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND moved to report SB 118, work order 32-LS0563\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 118 was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
4:28:28 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under
the Legislative Ethics Act."
He noted that he was the sponsor.
4:28:48 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved Amendment [1], work order [32-
LS0303\A.1].
32-LS0303\A.1
Wayne
3/25/21
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MYERS
TO: SB 31
Page 1, lines 8-9
Delete ", through a vote in a caucus,"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested that when the bill was drafted, there
was some misunderstanding about how a caucus comes together. She
read the first part of the sentence without the phrase. It read
as follows:
(k) A legislator may not commit or bind another
legislator to commit to vote for or against a bill,
appointment, veto, or other measure that may come to a
vote before a legislative body.
She related that a caucus is a group of people who coalesce
around certain ideas. There is no vote to join and it would be
inaccurate to leave the phrase in the sentence. This does not
change the intent of the legislation; it adds clarity and
accuracy.
CHAIR SHOWER, speaking as sponsor of SB 31, said the amendment
sounds good but he would like Mr. Ogan to speak to the
Legislative Legal Services opinion on the amendment.
4:31:15 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated it is the legislature's
prerogative whether or not to agree with legal opinions from the
Legislative Legal Services. He offered his belief that the
amendment makes the intent of the legislature more succinct.
4:32:28 PM
CHAIR SHOWER read the March 25, 2021 Legal Services' memorandum
from Legislative Counsel, Daniel C. Wayne for the record:
Transmitted herewith is the amendment you requested.
If adopted, the amendment would probably make the bill
unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has found
that :"restrictions upon legislators' voting are not
1
restrictions upon legislators' protected speech." The
Court explained:
[A} legislator's vote is the commitment of
his apportioned share of the legislature's
power to the passage or defeat of a
particular proposal. The legislative power
thus committed is not personal to the
legislator but belongs to the people; the
legislator has no personal right to it....
{T]he legislator casts his vote as trustee
for his constituents, not as a prerogative
of personal power. In this respect, voting
by a legislator is different from voting by
a citizen. While a voter's franchise is a
personal right, the procedures for voting in
legislative assemblies pertain to
legislators not as individuals but as
political representatives executing the
2
legislative process.
Notwithstanding this finding, the Court also
recognized a general rule that "the First Amendment
prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech, which,
as a general matter means that government has no power
to restrict expression because of its message, its
3
ideas its subject matter or its content." If the
proposed amendment is adopted it will prohibit a
legislator from committing to vote a certain way on a
piece of legislation - not just in a legislative
caucus, hallway, or office, but anywhere. For that
reason, if the bill is challenged in litigation a
court will probably find that it violates the First
Amendment, depending on specific facts. For example,
at present a legislator running for reelection may in
some instances lawfully make a public pledge to vote a
certain way on a pending bill in order to gain support
from the electorate. If amended as proposed, SB [31]
would prohibit a legislator (but not the legislator's
election opponents) from making that promise in any
instance. "The First Amendment has its fullest and
most urgent application to speech uttered during a
4
campaign for political office."
If I may be of further assistance please advise.
1
Nevada Com'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117,
125(201).
2
Id. at 125-126(Internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
3
Id. at 121(Internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
4
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm.,
489 U.S. 214, 233 (1989) (Internal quotation marks
omitted).
4:33:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he likes the proposed amendment because it
makes the intent of the bill more succinct and the foregoing was
"just a legal opinion."
4:34:06 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND offered his perspective that the amendment
"offers exceptional clarity" to the bill.
4:34:53 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO stated that the legislature follows both
Mason's Manual and the Alaska Constitution for how it conducts
voting. The Open Meetings Act requires that all votes must be
taken publicly. She said that is why legislative committees have
people who moderate and record the meeting and every vote is
taken publicly and recorded. She argued that without the
amendment, SB 31 would require caucus meetings to be recorded
and votes made publicly. She said her experience is that votes
are not cast in caucus, it is strategy that is discussed. She
maintained that the amendment clarifies what occurs in caucus.
CHAIR SHOWER said he agrees and he appreciates the
clarification.
4:37:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted the exception relating to the selection
of an officer of a caucus or legislative body and offered his
understanding that this generally does happen in both majority
and minority caucuses, sometimes through secret ballot. He asked
if this was incorrect.
CHAIR SHOWER deferred the question to Senator Costello.
SENATOR COSTELLO said the Senate majority caucus does not vote,
but when she was in the House the caucus had a secret ballot to
select the presiding office and other organizing. The exception
language would allow the House to continue that practice. She
clarified that the exception had nothing to do with legislation
or an issue and said she believes that language should stay in
the bill.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he appreciated the comments.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her perspective that the exception
language in paragraph (1) on lines 12 and 13 was "kind of a big
deal." She asked if the "selection of an officer" phrase meant a
chairmanship or leadership.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Costello if she wanted to respond and
added that he would like to hear from Mr. Ogan because of the
discussion with Legal Services.
4:41:47 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO responded that this was not her bill and the
questions were beyond the scope of the amendment.
SENATOR REINBOLD said her question was not directed to anybody
in particular. She just wanted to know whether the phrase meant
selection of a chair.
4:43:09 PM
CHAIR SHOWER responded that the answer is "yes" at the top
level, but he could see the difference in a caucus. He said his
vision was that there would be discussions about who would be in
leadership and chair positions and that goes out in a Committee
on Committees report for the open public vote. He asked Mr. Ogan
to comment.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for the bill and the amendment.
4:45:40 PM
MR. OGAN said the discussion is important to establish the
legislative intent. He recalled that Legislative Ethics laws
allow voting for the selection of officers, including chairs,
for the purpose of organizing. The law also says that votes on
legislation and amendments should be done in the open. He
reported that no other state has a binding caucus and one state
has it in their oath that legislators will not pledge their vote
to anybody. He suggested the committee consider the language in
that oath, perhaps instead of the amendment.
CHAIR SHOWER recalled that Mississippi requires legislators to
take an oath that they will not pledge their vote. He asked
Senator Reinbold if her question was answered.
SENATOR REINBOLD said yes.
4:49:37 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, Amendment [1] passed.
4:50:01 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 31 and recognized
Adam Hykes.
4:50:18 PM
At ease
4:50:36 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and noted that Mr. Hykes had
dropped offline.
4:50:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 31.
4:51:23 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND stated support for the amendment and said he did
not recall taking a vote in caucus.
SENATOR COSTELLO opined that all legislators should be held
responsible for ensuring that their caucuses discuss general
strategy. If at any time a vote is required in caucus, it is
incumbent on all members of that caucus to say that is not
allowed.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she does not support a binding
caucus.
CHAIR SHOWER welcomed suggestions to make the bill better.
4:54:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 31, work order 32-LS0303\A
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSB 31(STA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 120-ADMIN. REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
4:54:58 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act establishing the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee."
4:55:17 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD, speaking as sponsor, stated that SB 120
reestablishes the Administrative Regulation Review Committee to
ensure that regulations the administration writes reflect the
intent of bills the legislature passes. She said she was
seriously concerned about the 14 pages of regulations that were
suspended under the Disaster Act and this bill will provide a
check on the executive.
4:57:47 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said it is incumbent on the legislature to
ensure that the regulations fall in line with the intent of the
laws it passes. She characterized SB 120 as a better government
bill.
4:58:27 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that it was the responsibility of the
legislature to stay abreast of what the executive branch is
doing but it was difficult to keep up with the information on
regulatory changes that comes in several times a week.
CHAIR SHOWER stated agreement.
4:59:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 120.
5:00:03 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, Big Lake, Alaska, said he
supports anything that will help reduce regulations and allow
the economy to thrive. He advised that he tried to call earlier
to state support for SB 31 to eliminate binding caucuses. He
said Alaskans are tired of having their voices and votes
disregarded by binding caucus rules. He stated opposition to SB
126 saying the legislature's work can be accomplished in 90
days.
5:01:54 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 120.
SENATOR REINBOLD summarized that the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee emboldens and empowers a positive check and
balance on the executive branch.
5:03:01 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND moved to report SB 120, work order 32-LS0477\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 120 was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SJR 12-SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT REDUCTION REPEAL
5:03:28 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 12 Urging the United States Congress to repeal
the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset
of the Social Security Act.
5:03:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SJR 12, introduced the resolution paraphrasing the
following sponsor statement:
SJR 12 urges Congress to repeal the Windfall
Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension
Offset (GPO) of the Social Security Act. The WEP cuts
the Social Security benefits of public employees in
Alaska if they plan to switch between the public
sector and private sector or military. In 2021, this
loss could be as much as $498 per month, or about
$6,000 a year. The GPO cuts spousal or widows'
benefits for public employees for no reason other than
their work in the public sector. This cut could amount
to as much as 2/3rds the value of the individual's
government pension.
Because Alaska is one of few states that does not
offer a defined benefit plan or coverage for social
security, the WEP and GPO affect more Alaskans per
capita than any other state. Public employees in
Alaska are being punished for choosing to work in
public service.
The WEP and GPO negatively impact recruitment and
retention of Alaska public employees such as
firefighters, police officers and especially teachers.
Those who do not want to be subject to these
provisions will simply look elsewhere for employment.
Punishing individuals for choosing public service runs
counter to retaining dedicated Alaskan workers and
recruiting the best of the best to Alaska.
Passage of SJR 12 will demonstrate that the Alaska
Legislature opposes arbitrary and unfair cuts to the
rightfully earned Social Security benefits of
Alaskans. Alaskans deserve to retire with dignity.
I urge your support of SJR 12.
5:06:16 PM
At ease
5:07:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
5:07:20 PM
TREVOR BAILEY, Staff, Senator Tom Begich and former Intern to
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, delivered a PowerPoint presentation to explain the
Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension
Offset (GPO). He began with an explanation of how Social
Security benefits are calculated. First, an individual must have
40 quarters or 10 years paid into Social Security. The Social
Security Administration adds the highest 35 years of earnings
adjusted for inflation. The total is divided by 420 (the number
of months in 35 years) to arrive at the average index monthly
earnings (AIME). A progressive scale is used to calculate
earnings from the AIME. An individual keeps 90 percent of the
first $996 of earnings. Between $996 and $6,002, the individual
keeps 32 percent. For earnings over $6,002, the individual keeps
15 percent.
5:08:21 PM
MR. BAILEY explained that the Windfall Elimination Provision is
a reduction to a qualified individual's Social Security benefits
because they also worked in job(s) not covered by Social
Security. These individuals are primarily public employees. In
Alaska, public employees, teachers, firefighters, police
officers, and legislators are not covered by Social Security. He
said the WEP can reduce the factor in the first step to
calculate the AIME from 90 percent to anywhere from 85 to 40
percent depending on the number of years paid into Social
Security. In 2021 that factor can be as much as $498 per month.
In 2019, the offset affected about 11.5 of all Social Security
recipients. This was 2 million Americans, 12,050 of whom were
Alaskans, which is the highest number of any state.
MR. BAILEY explained that the Government Pension Offset affects
spousal or widower benefits of Social Security recipients. The
reduction is based on the individual receiving a government
pension in a job that did not pay into Social Security. The
reduction is two-thirds of the value of the government pension.
He highlighted that Alaska's Tier IV defined contribution plan
is considered a government pension. If the value of the spousal
or widower benefit is less than two-thirds of the value of the
government pension, the benefit is zero. This offset affected
717,000 Americans in 2020; 3,320 beneficiaries were Alaskans,
2,419 of whom received zero benefit. He pointed out that a
spouse or widow affected by GPO would receive no help with
funeral costs and no financial help surviving without their
spouse.
5:11:11 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked how the military is affected.
MR. BAILEY offered his understanding that the military pays into
Social Security so members who work in public sector jobs not
covered by Social Security would be affected by the WEP.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if they might be affected by both WEP and
GPO.
MR. BAILEY replied it depends on the number of years the
individual worked in a job covered by Social Security. Somebody
with 20 or fewer years in a job covered by Social Security who
then moves into a public sector job that does not pay into
Social Security, would see the number drop to 40 percent. The
percentage increases 5 percent up to 90 percent for anything
between 21 and 30 years. Somebody who works 30 years in a job
covered by Social Security and then works in a job that is not
covered would not be affected by the WEP.
5:13:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that somebody who leaves the
military after 20 years and then becomes a legislator would see
their Social Security benefit reduced.
5:14:04 PM
At ease
5:14:40 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and moved to invited
testimony.
5:15:36 PM
TOM KLAAMEYER, President, NEA Alaska, stated that while he is
not an expert on the WEP and GPO, he has had to become educated
on the topic because it is such an important issue for NEA
members, Alaska PERS or TRS members, legislators and staff. They
are all potentially subject to the GPO/WEP penalties.
He agreed with Mr. Bailey that the GPO/WEP can negatively affect
Social Security benefits of certain state employees simply
because they collect a PERS or TRS retirement. Public employees
and educators hired after PERS and TRS changed from a defined
benefit system to a defined contribution system in 2006 are
particularly vulnerable because they do not receive a PERS or
TRS pension. Nevertheless, they are subject to the GPO/WEP
penalties on their earned Social Security benefits.
5:17:52 PM
MR. KLAAMEYER said the committee members should know that Alaska
TRS members are in an even more difficult situation. About 60
percent of certificated Alaska TRS members hired after 2006 do
not receive a pension and are not able to participate in Social
Security even if they want to. He said they have the dubious
distinction of having the least secure, worst retirement system
in the country. If teaching is a second career or if they had to
work a second job to make ends meet they get no pension and
their Social Security safety net is shredded by GPO/WEP.
MR. KLAAMEYER said the reason for PERS to opt out of Social
Security may have made sense in 1951 when there was just Tier I
but he would like to think that state leaders at the time would
have made different choices had they known the precarious
situation it placed future educators. On a more positive note,
he said there is a process by which individual school districts
or the state as a whole can reenter the Social Security System.
This might provide more retirement security but it would require
a cost benefit analysis because of the GPO/WEP problem. He said
NEA is doing its best to educate members on this topic, but it
is complex. He thanked the sponsor for introducing the
resolution and noted that NEA had been working with the
congressional delegation on this topic for years. He expressed
hope that this resolution would raise the profile of this
problem and give the delegation the support it needs to more
effectively advocate for this change.
SENATOR REINBOLD recognized Mr. Klaameyer as a constituent and
said she would not make a commitment because she was such a
fiscal conservative.
5:24:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SJR 12.
5:24:23 PM
RICHARD SEWELL representing self, Anchorage Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. He explained that he paid into Social
Security on an off over 50 years. He moved to Alaska in 1981,
worked for the Municipality of Anchorage, and is a Tier I member
of PERS. The municipality pays into Social Security but because
of the WEP, his Social Security benefit is reduced by 40
percent.
5:25:51 PM
CARMEN RUSSO, representing self, Anderson, Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. She stated that she paid into Social Security
for 30 years and would have received a full Social Security
benefit but she became a teacher and the WEP reduced her benefit
by two-thirds.
5:26:59 PM
MITCHELL ROTH, Retiree, University of Alaska, Girdwood, Alaska,
testified in support of SJR 12. He stated that he was hired by
UAF in 1983 and before that worked in the private sector. Two
things happened the year he started at UAF that he did not know
about. First, his prior work qualified him for Social Security
benefits. Second, the Social Security Act of 1983 included the
WEP provision. As a result he has forfeited 50 percent of his
previously earned Social Security benefits. He has lost over
$48,000 in retirement benefits that he earned prior his work in
Alaska.
5:28:55 PM
SUSAN FREEL, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. She stated that she is a UAA retiree and
while she has 16 years of substantial earnings, seven of the
years overlapped with her tenure at the university. She earned
the full Social Security benefit but she receives just 64
percent.
5:29:51 PM
CATHY MCDORQUODALE, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in support of SJR 12. She said she has the same issue
the previous speakers mentioned. Social Security sent annual
reports telling her what her benefit would be on retirement but
it was not that amount. She said "windfall elimination" is a
perfect description for a contradiction and unfairness.
5:30:40 PM
ROBERT SEWARD, representing self, Newark, Delaware, testified in
support of SJR 12. He said he worked for the State of Alaska for
28 years and he learned about the WEP in the Social Security
office. He paid into Social Security and he does not think his
benefit should be reduced. "When I heard you were considering
this resolution, my heart leapt."
5:31:27 PM
NADINE LEFEBVRE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. She stated that she is a PERS retiree. She
reported that about 19 percent of the Alaska population are
seniors and 10,000 receive some combination of earned Social
Security benefit and retirement pension benefits. She said
eliminating the unfair reductions to earned Social Security
benefits will help ensure that the growing senior demographic
can age in place and continue to support their community. She
pointed out that seniors contribute over $1.5 billion to the
Alaska economy annually. Present and future retired Alaskans
will benefit by the repeal of the WEP and GPO. She advised that
she would send her full comments in an email.
SENATOR HOLLAND advised that he had stepped in to chair the
meeting.
5:33:46 PM
CAROL WATERS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. She stated that she and her husband have been
retired for 20 years and they began receiving Social Security 10
years ago. Their benefits were decreased $491 per month per
person and they estimate that between the GPO and WEP they have
lost $320,000. She said the federal government has taken that
money from her family and that is wrong.
5:34:47 PM
KIMBERLY METCALFE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in support of SJR 12. She stated that she was close to age 66
when she decided to retire and was concerned that her Social
Security benefit might be affected by the GPO or WEP. She worked
for the state for 8 years and had a small state pension. The
Social Security representative said her benefit would not be
affected because she had worked in the private sector for 30
years. She understood that if she waited to collect Social
Security until age 70 she would get a larger benefit and until
then she could collect a $1,400 per month widow's pension on her
late husband's benefit. He died before he received a benefit but
had paid in his entire life. However, she was told there would
be an offset when she filled out the paperwork. She learned that
her pension counted against her husband's benefit.
5:36:49 PM
STEVEN CLICK, representing self, testified in support of SJR 12.
He stated that he retired from teaching in 1987 as a Tier I
retiree. He paid into Social Security for 40 quarters and he
estimates that his benefit was cut by 40 percent. He will
receive almost nothing from his husband's Social Security
benefit even though he paid Social Security throughout his life.
He related that his son who is a teacher in Barrow will be a
Tier III TRS retiree and he is part of the worst type of
retirement system in the nation. He noted that he lives in
California now and public employees in that state also are
affected by the WEP and/or the GPO.
5:38:49 PM
JOHN DART, representing self, North Pole, Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 12. He stated that he spent half his career in
the private sector and half in the public sector and he cannot
understand why the WEP and GPO is still affecting the lives of
retirees throughout the nation. This needs to change because it
is affecting people's lives. Many people do not find out about
the penalty until it is too late to do anything about it.
5:40:35 PM
BARBARA MCNINCH, representing self, Soldotna, Alaska, testified
in support of SJR 12. She stated that she moved to Alaska in
1975 and she worked in the private sector until she was in her
40s and thereafter worked in Alaska public schools. She is
affected by both the WEP and the GPO.
5:41:35 PM
JOY GREEN, representing self, Kona, HI, testified in support of
SJR 12. She stated that as a retired teacher from Alaska, her
Social Security benefits are affected by both the WEP and the
GPO. She is unable to receive the full benefits she earned
before becoming a teacher and she is denied the spousal benefits
her late husband earned. She feels she is being penalized for
choosing a teaching career.
5:42:46 PM
LADAWN DRUCE, Staff, Sterling, Alaska, testified in support of
SJR 12. She stated that her husband retired as a Tier I teacher
nine years ago and the WEP and the GPO reduced his benefit $400
per month, which is a little over $43,000 over the last nine
years. She pointed out that recruiting educators and public
employees in Alaska is more difficult now because of the defined
contribution retirement system and the GPO/WEP.
5:44:09 PM
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SJR 12. She stated that when the GPO and
the WEP were devised, the reasoning was that public employees
were double dipping, although there was no such claim about
private sector employees who receive multiple retirement from
various companies. It was a policy of the ages to take from the
poor and give to the rich. She said she paid into both Social
Security and Medicare and was taxed like everyone else who
receives the full benefit.
5:45:42 PM
ACTING CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SJR 12.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI thanked the committee for staying late on
this critical issue that affects many thousands of Alaskans. It
will not cost the state anything, but it will bring money into
Alaska and change the lives of many Alaskans, he said.
ACTING CHAIR HOLLAND held SJR 12 in committee.
5:47:17 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Acting Chair Holland adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:47 p.m.