HB 110: BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COUNCILS/AUTHORITIES Number 045 RANDY WELKER, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION, discussed the sunset provisions and laws with the change to Alaska's law from four to ten years. Other states reviewed their boards and commissions every eight to thirteen years, he noted. Number 106 CHAIRMAN VEZEY discussed the termination of boards and commissions and agency programs with Mr. Welker. Number 202 MR. WELKER spoke on the provisions in AS 44.66.050 regarding sunsets of boards and commissions. Number 230 CHAIRMAN VEZEY discussed AS 44.66.050 in regards to the sunset law. He stated concerns with the steps needed to be performed and the failure to follow them. Number 242 MR. WELKER discussed AS 44.66.050 as it related to exemptions. Number 256 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked about boards that would be eliminated by HB 110. Number 260 MR. WELKER said the purpose of HB 110 was not to eliminate boards or commissions but to clean up statutes. Number 270 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if AS 44.66.050 gave the legislature more authority or if it defined legislative authority. Number 274 MR. WELKER explained HB 110 simply defined what to expect in the sunset process. Number 298 KRISTIE LEAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, discussed the extension of licensing boards. Reference was made to sections 2 and 5 of HB 110, which changed the sunset program from four to ten years. The Governor's office did not support changing the review length, and believed four years were better than ten. She suggested the audits be done in the last year. Number 356 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS did not support a 10 year cycle. He asked if the purpose of changing terms was to simplify the process and amount of activity it took to review every four years. Number 366 MS. LEAF said the Governor was not proposing any legislation to change the four year cycle. Number 376 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referenced the Audit Report of October 30, 1992, on boards and commissions which was included in the committee members packets. Page 11, paragraph 2 of that report stated the average for a review was eight years. Due to the work and cost involved, it would be more efficient to change, she believed. By having the terms staggered, less auditors would be needed to do the review, she said. Number 398 MS. LEAF discussed research comparing review terms of other states. Alaska had less boards because many were merged together, she alleged. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated reviews could be done at any time, and the legislature could eliminate Boards and Commissions whenever it chose to do so. Number 432 MS. LEAF said there were 150 boards in the state, 40 of which fell under the sunset. Many exist yet were not funded, she noted. The legislature could call for a review at any time but that was not something that had been used. The sunset process brought the board to the legislature's attention so that a conscious decision to keep it had to be made. Number 458 CHAIRMAN VEZEY said it was positive to confirm instead of bringing up a board due to dissatisfaction. Number 485 KARL LUCK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), said HB 110 would not have a large impact on the DCED. He discussed the Board of Electrical Examiners, which was allowed to sunset. This caused a chaos in the industry, and the DCED was unable to renew licenses, he disclosed. Number 525 CHAIRMAN VEZEY said the Department of Labor (DOL) and the DCED took no action, but instead, allowed the board to sunset. He also said there was an attorney general's opinion. Number 533 MR. LUCK said the licensing function was not transferred so no licensing function was able to take place. Number 548 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked about legislation regarding examiners by the DOL. Number 554 MR. LUCK said there was a differing of opinion regarding whether licensing duties should reside in the DCED's Division of Occupational Licensing or the DOL. The use of electrical administrators as inspectors was debatable because if they were owners of electrical companies they would have to inspect themselves, he noted. Number 579 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked for clarification regarding the legal authority of the DOL for inspection. Number 589 MR. LUCK said the DOL had authority to hire an individual to inspect and to charge a fee for the inspection, as well as authority to license electrical administrators. The DOL might also file a complaint against an electrical administrator's license. Reference was made to AS 08.40.175. This section would not be repealed, he said. ADJOURNMENT Number 621 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked Mr. Luck for a position paper from the DOL on HB 110. He said the House State Affairs' committee aide would cross reference HB 111 with HB 110 and report back to the committee. He then adjourned the meeting at 8:43 a.m.