HB 271-AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES  3:36:03 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for an effective date." 3:36:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 271, labeled 32-LS1364\I, Klein, 4/15/22, as the working document. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected. 3:37:00 PM XANNIE BORSETH, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, provided a summary of changes in the proposed CS for HB 271 ("Version I"), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Deletes Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.  Section 4 Page 2, line 10 adds "by publishing the notice on the authority's Internet website" to AS 44.88.085(d) which requires public notice before adoption, amendment, or repeal of an AIDEA proposed action. Sections renumbered accordingly  3:38:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether a two-minute minimum for public testimony would be too prescriptive. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the two-minute minimum was unchanged from the original version of the bill. MS. BORSETH answered yes, noting that the language, "not less than two minutes", was on page 2, line 19. REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern that the chair would not have discretion. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised the committee to table this discussion until final comment, as the provision in question was not new to Version I. 3:40:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under the proposed legislation, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) membership would be staggard five-year terms that, once confirmed by the legislature, could not be removed by the governor. MS. BORSETH deferred to the bill sponsor. 3:41:40 PM ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that Representative Claman's understanding was accurate. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he liked the provision because the AIDEA board members would serve independently from the executive branch. 3:42:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated his previous concern about the language on page 2, line 22, such that the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority ("the authority") may be required to publish written responses to a large number of public comments. MS. SORUM-BIRK said she did not have a response to that concern at this time. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that similar to Representative Story's inquiry, the language in question was unchanged relative to the original version of the bill. 3:43:33 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Version I was adopted as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected her original line of questioning regarding the two-minute minimum for public testimony. 3:45:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of HB 271, opined that a minimum of two minutes for public testimony was a vast improvement compared to current practices. 3:45:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented on the history of abrupt time or agenda changes in AIDEA's scheduled meetings. She asked whether the current language adequately addressed the expectations of transparency. She suggested adding language that prohibited last minute meeting changes, which had shattered public trust in the past. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the goal was not to tie the board's hands completely. He indicated that it was a policy call. 3:48:24 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited general comments from Mr. Weitzner on Version I. 3:48:49 PM ALAN WEITZNER, Executive Director, AIDEA, directed attention to the meeting agendas, which were published on the authority's website and available for public review. He contended that the public was consistently allotted two minutes per person for one hour, as defined on the agenda. He stated that AIDEA took public comment extremely seriously, adding that the authority would be receptive to suggestions for improvement. Regarding Version I, he directed attention to Section 5, which repealed AIDEA's confidentiality statutes, arguing that the language in AS 44.88.215 was necessary for AIDEA's operation. He cautioned the committee that repealing the confidentiality statutes would publicize all the information submitted by parties with business operations or loans with AIDEA, both current and historically. He urged the committee to take a closer look at Section 5. 3:53:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Weitzner was suggesting that Section 5 should be excluded. MR. WEITZNER answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to the language "shall publish written responses to public comments" on page 2, lines 21-22 of Version I and asked how AIDEA would treat that provision in practice. Specifically, he questioned whether AIDEA would respond to similar comments with a general response, as opposed to responding to each individual comment separately. MR. WEITZNER explained that under current practice, AIDEA provided a written response to written public comment. He maintained that AIDEA had the capacity to meet the requirement in question. He asked the committee how the provision would be put into practice, questioning whether AIDEA would be required to address each individual public comment before taking action. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked, "I understand the current practice is that, internally, you have some memo that says, 'here's how we respond to these 100 comments,' but those comments don't go anywhere other than internally?" MR. WEITZNER responded that internal staff reviewed and responded to the parties that send public comment. 3:57:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that last minute changes had been made to the agenda of a specific AIDEA meeting regarding the purchase of leases for drilling in the Arctic refuge, which impacted people's ability to provide public testimony on the issue. She asked Mr. Weitzner to comment on that circumstance. MR. WEITZNER said the meeting in question was declared as a "special meeting of the board." He explained that the meeting was on short notice because of the need to make a decision in a short period of time due to a limited opportunity to act on the leases. He reiterated that under current practice, two minutes of public testimony was allotted per person for one hour. He shared his understanding that only the public testimony that would have exceeded the one-hour time period was cut off. 3:59:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that prior actions had led the public to call for a reform of the enabling statutes. She opined that it would be in the public's best interest to extend the time for public testimony past one hour, as cutting people off planted the seeds of mistrust. She expressed her hope that absent the passage of the proposed legislation, AIDEA would consider the impact of its actions relative to the public's trust. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the existing statutory language on public comment pertaining to AIDEA stated, "a total period of at least on hour". He asked why public testimony had been cut off after completing the bare minimum and who made that decision. MR. WEITZNER stated that it was common practice of the chair to extend that time period. He emphasized that, ultimately, it was the chair's decision. He shared his understanding that any party who did not get a chance to testify was encouraged to email their testimony to AIDEA. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected his question back to the incident described by Representative Tarr. He asked why the chair had decided to stop public testimony after one hour despite there being additional members of the public in the que to testify. MR. WEITZNER said it was the chair's decision to stop the agenda item. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the interest in efficiency; however, he pointed out that a legislative committee would never cut public testimony short if there were people in the queue. 4:05:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about special meetings of the board and asked how the process for public notice differed from regular meetings. MR. WEITZNER reported that public testimony for the meeting in question was noticed for 1.5 hours. He explained that AIDEA followed the Open Meetings Act, per AS 44.62.310, which required "reasonable public notice" for open meetings. In practice, he stated that AIDEA made agendas available to the public one week prior to the scheduled board meetings. For special meetings, AIDEA was required to provide notice at least 48 hours in advance. In regard to the specific meeting in question, he recalled that the agenda was provided three days in advance. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON addressed Mr. Weitzner's comments on Section 5, indicating that his intent was for the effect to be prospective, as opposed to retroactive. 4:08:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN associated himself with Representative Tarr's comments regarding public testimony. He shared his understanding that the intent of the proposed legislation was to require AIDEA to listen to public testimony in its entirety. 4:10:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Mr. Weitzner to elaborate on his concerns about Section 5. MR. WEITZNER reiterated his belief that Section 5 would have the broadest impact on ADIEA's operations. He maintained that the existing language under AS 44.88.215 specifically limited the amount of information that AIDEA was allowed to hold and define as confidential. He pointed out that Section 5 would directly impact AIDEA's loan programs and the way the authority engaged with the financial service industry within Alaska. He argued that eliminating the confidentiality statutes would significantly impact AIDEA's capacity to continue with its current operations and the issuance of dividends. 4:13:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew a comparison between limited public testimony and campaign finance limits, arguing that it could discourage people from participating in the public process. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked the bill sponsor to speak to the intent of [Section 5]. 4:14:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON conveyed that it was a "core principle of AIDEA's critics." He explained that his intent was to herald and champion the public's ability to meaningfully interact with the board. He recalled that transparency was afforded to the public for decades, as AIDEA was founded in 1967; however, now, transparency appeared to be lacking. He indicated that enabling more transparency was an important feature of Version I. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that a blanket confidentiality proviso could be overkill; however, businesses may not want their intimate details and financial information to be public record. He expressed his interest in finding a middle ground. 4:16:20 PM MS. SORUM-BIRK said a more detailed legal analysis could be obtained and distributed to the committee. Nonetheless, she recalled that numerous federal laws protected the confidentiality of sensitive financial records. She explained that the bill sponsor's intent was for records to be subject to the Alaska Public Records Act. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that a legal analysis would provide him some comfort and better understanding. He suggested looking at an analogue of how public records laws interacted with the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development's (DCCED's) Division of Economic Development's revolving loan fund programs, given that much of the financing went through that entity. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 271 was held over.