HB 65-LEG./PUB. OFFICIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE  1:48:02 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act relating to the disclosure of financial information by persons who are subject to the Legislative Ethics Act and by certain public officers, public employees, and candidates for public office." [Before the committee was CSHB 65(STA).] 1:48:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as prime sponsor said that originally the bill was intended to change the [deadline] of the public official financial disclosures (POFD) which are required to be filed. He explained all public officials, whether in the state legislature, or local governments, or boards and commissions, must file full disclosures of their financial transactions of the previous year. He extended that the bill takes no issue with the substance of those filings, but rather that, under statute, the disclosures are due on March 15. Originally, the bill moved the date back to after the date of an individual's federal income tax filing requirement. He opined that this would allow individuals with complex financial situations to file an accurate and comprehensive report within the same time frame as they are required by federal statute to have their income tax returns completed, without an extension. He stated that the House State Affairs Standing Committee agreed with idea but said the April 30 date was a little quick and moved the date to May 15. He explained that the crux of the bill would change the annual filing dates for legislative financial disclosures and public official's financial disclosure statements from March 15 to May 15, of each year. 1:50:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted further changes in the bill with regard to professionals, such as attorneys, doctors, accountants, engineers, architects, or independent nurses with a multitude of clients and are required to disclose all of their clients and revenues. He further noted that attorneys can claim attorney-client privilege, and there are accountants who will not allow individuals to disclose their client base, and the amount they are being paid. Therefore, through regulatory activity the APOC has allowed them to not disclose those clients, he said. Statutorily, he stated that the language in the bill makes it very clear that a public official public disclosure filer could be exempted from disclosing information if that information is either confidential by law or would adversely affect the individual's ability to conduct business. The bill then sets up the standard to weigh the potential harm to the person comparing it to the public's interest in obtaining that information, he related. 1:52:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER continued that two provisions were brought forward by the APOC itself, which includes various reporting requirements as it relates to different individuals residing in different communities of different size. He said the sponsor has no opinion on the APOC request. 1:52:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concluded that the APOC recommended an increase in population from 5,000 to 15,000, and it appears that the sponsor is neutral. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated he has no opinion on that subject. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded to Representative Claman that in the interest of accommodating the concerns of the APOC, the sponsor does not object to include its request in this bill knowing it would go through the legislative process and on various committees with the opportunity to discuss it with the APOC. 1:53:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the waiver of disclosing clients is one that professionals, such as, lawyers, doctors, nurses would have to make a special request for the waiver as it would not automatically apply. JULIE LUCKY, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker, Alaska State Legislature, responded to Representative Claman that there is currently a waiver process where the person does put forth a letter to the APOC and the person is granted a waiver from disclosure. She opined that the reporting reads, instead of naming address of client it will now say "protected by HIPPA, or attorney-client privilege, or some notation" regarding the information is not being disclosed. 1:55:04 PM PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, responded to Representative Claman that the bill puts the process into statute rather than solely in regulation and it would not change the process of the APOC "much at all, if at all." He noted an earlier comment of individual granted a waiver or exemption for reporting all of their clients, the individual can report the aggregate amount and not refer to the clients; others report the clients in an abbreviated manner, and eliminate identifying information, and list the income. 1:55:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if there is a formal request lawyers and doctors and write to the APOC, or simply make the claim on their form. MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that in general, individuals requesting the exemption write to the APOC and explain their situation, and the APOC goes from there. CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony 1:57:33 PM KATHY WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated the committee substitute changes the population figures to now require municipalities between the population count of 5,000 and 15,000, to file electronically. The Alaska Municipal League (AML) had not heard from the APOC that the change was coming as no one called any of the clerks involved. She said she does not have the list of municipalities that have opted out, but without that list it affects 12 different communities. While it may not be a stretch to require electronic filing in the larger communities, but places such as Bethel it becomes more difficult, she noted. She related that many of the clerks do have people filing by paper. She maintained she was told by an individual at the APOC this was requested by the clerks in order to allow them more time because it required [a certain amount of] their time. She referred to AS 39.50.020(b), which read: (b) A public official or former public official other than an elected or appointed municipal officer shall file the statement with the Alaska Public Offices Commission. Candidates for the office of governor and lieutenant governor and, if the candidate is not subject to AS 24.60, the legislature shall file the statement under AS 15.25.030 or 15.25.180. Municipal officers, former municipal officers, and candidates for elective municipal office, shall file with the municipal clerk or other municipal official designated to receive their filing for office. All statements required to be filed under this chapter are public records. MS. WASSERMAN continued her testimony and stated that this does not save the clerks' time as they still must get a paper copy on file in their office. She opined that in the future when the APOC desires changing rules that it talk to the clerks, or to the municipalities. She expressed that AML is opposed to that section of the bill and would like that portion removed, otherwise AML does not have a problem with the bill. 2:01:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Wasserman is testifying as a representative of the AML. MS. WASSERMAN answered in the affirmative. 2:01:34 PM MS. WASSERMAN reiterated to Representative Claman that other than the above portion, AML has no problem with the bill at all. She directed that she discussed the bill with the clerks who "in theory" had requested this, and they said "they had not." 2:01:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for clarification that if the committee does not put the amendment in as an option, AML is happy with the bill. MS. WASSERMAN stated that AML is not happy with the bill that states communities between 5,000 and 15,000 should be included. 2:02:24 PM CHAIR LEDOUX questioned Mr. Dauphinais where he received the idea of changing the numbers for the municipalities to the 15,000 level. MR. DAUPHINAIS responded that over the last couple of years, both he and his staff have given a number of trainings and presentations. He remarked were approached several times by clerks requesting a manner their filers could file electronically. He opined that if they have since changed their mind, the APOC has no problem with that portion of the bill being removed, and he apologized to the sponsor. 2:03:29 PM CHAIR LEDOUX verified that he did not check with the clerks recently. MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "That is correct." 2:03:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that from the standpoint of the APOC, whether the 5,000 to 15,000 has any impact in terms of doing business. MR. DAUPHINAIS relayed that it would not change the way the APOC does business at all and it is completely cost neutral. 2:04:09 PM CHAIR LEDOUX quiered that as the law currently stands, an individual who is not required to file electronically wishes to file electronically, whether they are precluded from filing electronically. MR. DAUPHINAIS responded "No, they are not," as anyone can file electronically. CHAIR LEDOUX said she was having a problem understanding why then the clerks would have approached him to change the numbers if individuals were already allowed to file electronically. MR. DAUPHINAIS offered that the clerks told him it was quite bothersome for them in that they had to maintain a stack of forms, and give them out to the filers and later collect them, and later give them to the APOC in some manner. When filers file electronically, they are already filed with the APOC and [print] the copy and give it to the clerk, or the clerk can print a copy. He offered that Ms. Wasserman was correct in that the municipal clerk is the custodial of the record. CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that her confusion is if the individuals are able to file electronically without changing the rules, then they really didn't have to keep ... she said she did not see why it would have been burdensome to the clerks. 2:06:17 PM MS. WASSERMAN responded to Representative Foster that she did not mean to just zero in on Bethel as her records showed that 12 communities were involved and related that electronic filing will be much more difficult in the Northwest Artic Borough or in the North Slope Borough. 2:07:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 29- LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, which read: Page 2, line 11: Delete "5,000" Insert "15,000" Page 2, line 14: Delete "[15,000]" Page 5, line 10: Delete "5,000" Insert "15,000" Page 5, line 13: Delete "may [15,000 SHALL]" Insert "shall" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected and stated that after listening to the testimony he did not believe the bill should be amended to change the number from 5,000 to 15,000, as the clerks affected are content with 5,000. 2:08:27 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:08:27 to 2:10:06 p.m. 2:10:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked for clarification that the committee would be adopting the 15,000 number. 2:11:00 PM MS. LUCKY explained that the current statute has a threshold of a community with a population of 15,000 wherein those municipal officers currently can choose to paper file, or electronic file. She opined that a great number of those people do choose to electronic file, which is allowed under current law. During the House State Affairs Standing Committee hearing, an amendment was adopted to drop the threshold to 5,000. She advised that the sponsor has heard from AML and a few of the boroughs that they are concerned with that change. She explained that Amendment 1 would leave the status quo in the statute. She further explained that there would be no change to the current threshold which is a municipality with a population of 15,000 or fewer, and would still have the option of either paper filing or filing electronically. 2:12:16 PM CHAIR LEDOUX [treating the objection as withdrawn] said Amendment 1 passes. 2:12:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 65, Version 29- LS0070\N.1, Wayne, 3/3/15, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 65(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 2:13:12 PM