CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(FIN) "An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to a person's eligibility to hold a registered guide-outfitter license, master guide- outfitter license, class-A assistant guide license, assistant guide license, or transporter license; and providing for an effective date." 9:33:48 AM Co-Chair Wilson relayed that she would hold the bill in committee. She expected that an amendment was forthcoming. She indicated that some concerns regarding the board lingered. She asked to hear from Legislative Audit regarding the recommended 5 year period of extension and consequences of a shorter extension period. KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, shared that more than 800 hours had gone into the audit and it had cost approximately $70,000. She shared that the division had just recently audited the board; three years prior in 2015 and again in 2018. She had recommended a two year extension in the past for another board due to serious public safety concerns. Typically, a three year extension meant they had serious concerns. She indicated that they could begin another audit in the coming year. However, she did not believe they would find anything to draw a different conclusion. The term of extension was exclusively a legislative decision. Legislative Audit Division would place the audit first in a queue and make it a priority if the legislature made it a priority. Co-Chair Wilson wondered why the division only recommended a 5 year audit versus and 8 year audit. Ms. Curtis answered that the division had recommended a six-year extension. The Senate Finance Committee had changed the period to five years over concerns about the investigation. She clarified that the audit did not conclude that the board did a poor job with investigations. The audit did conclude that there had been no documentation to support periods of inactivity. The division was not required to report on the quality of the investigatory decisions, only the efficiency with which decisions were made. The eleven sunset audit criteria that were listed in the back of every audit report were used unless directed otherwise by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBA). 9:38:06 AM Representative Josephson asked about the statement that an audit would be prioritized if requested by the legislature. He asked for details. Ms. Curtis clarified that the division always prioritized items that carried a statutory requirement. She delineated that any legislator could request a performance audit through LBA and if approved, the audit was placed first in the que of audits. The division would address the audit as resources allowed. Sunset audits were statutorily required and were given priority. Representative Knopp asked that for every board with a sunset requirement the division was mandated to perform an audit regardless of the extension. Ms. Curtis answered that not all boards had an audit requirement. She pointed out that not all entities with a sunset date had an audit requirement. She elaborated that many occupational boards had the sunset requirement. When a sunset date was put in statute the division performed an audit one year prior to the sunset. Representative Knopp deduced that if he did not want an audit when the board sunset the division was required to perform one regardless. Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative. Co-Chair Wilson deduced that a remedy for a concern regarding the length of time investigations were taking would be better addressed via statute versus an audit. 9:40:17 AM Ms. Curtis answered that LBA wanted a specific focus on a sunset audit the committee could request that the division add an audit criterion. She restated that besides the 11 sunset criteria there was the ability to look at something more deliberately. Representative LeBon asked for verification that the division would do an audit one year prior to the sunset date of 2024 in the bill. Ms. Curtis nodded in agreement. Representative LeBon asked for clarification regarding who could request a performance audit. Ms. Curtis answered that any legislator could request an audit through the LBA committee. She reiterated that completing the audit depended on the divisions available resources. She noted that the division was completing an audit at present that began in 2015. A special performance audit typically took one year before the audit process began. Representative Knopp surmised that when there were additional concerns with the board not included in the audit it would require a special audit request that might take three to four more years to address. Co-Chair Wilson interjected that if there were specific concerns about the board sunset it should be included in the current extension bill. She asked how the additional concerns should be included in the audit via a letter or amending the bill. She wondered what the process was. Representative Knopp questioned whether a request had to be made in a special audit or if they could be addressed via the sunset bill. Ms. Curtis answered that the most efficient way was to include the concerns in a sunset audit bill. She cautioned the committee that she usually worked with someone making audit requests - audits needed specific criteria in order to answer the question and could not be subjective. 9:44:06 AM Representative Knopp relayed that he had heard many concerns about the board, and he planned to recommend a shorter extension period of two years. Co-Chair Wilson thought there was time to reach out to Ms. Curtis to ensure the committee provided a framework to address the concerns in the bill. She was uncertain that a two year extension was enough time to get questions answered. Co-Chair Wilson suggested that Representative Knopps office contact Ms. Curtis for consultation. Representative Knopp declined to consult with Ms. Curtis. Representative LeBon referenced Ms. Curtis's phrase "best practices." He shared that in the banking industry the term was used often. He believed that it was a very intangible concept. He cautioned that best practices were carefully crafted and sometimes not to the benefit of the auditee. 9:47:07 AM GARY ZEPP, STAFF, SENATOR DAVID WILSON, shared that Senator Wilson appreciated the work the committee had done. Co-Chair Wilson noted there was possibly another amendment coming forward and would hold the bill until the following meeting. CSSB 16(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.