Info Security Plan and Candidate Ineligibility at State Affairs

(H)STATE AFFAIRS		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Mar 18 Thursday 8:00 AM		CAPITOL 106
*+	HB 394	EXECUTIVE BRANCH RECORDS SECURITY	TELECONFERENCED
=+	HB 53	CANDIDATES INELIGIBLE FOR BDS/COMMISSIONS	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

I don't think the details here are that important so I'll summarize.  Rep. Keller has a bill to require the Commissioner of Administration to be the Chief Information Officer as well and to make the Department of Administration responsible for security of records.

[Photo:  Rep. Keller and aide testifying, Reps. Gruenberg and Petersen in the background.]

There were lots of questions about definitions, about the benefits and drawbacks of centralization, and answers from Deputy Commissioners  Rachel Petro and Kevin Brooks. My basic sense, and I talked to Dept. Commissioner Brooks afterward, was that overall, the Department is already doing most of the stuff the bill requires - setting up security plans and protocols and coordinating the policies of all departments. They, in fact, said that while there needs to be one general set of policies and standards, the various agencies also need some leeway to be sure they can meet various federal standards with which some of their programs must comply. What this bill would do is confirm in statute what is already happening, and formally place the overall responsibility with the Commissioner of Administration.

The bill passed out of committee.

HB 53	CANDIDATES INELIGIBLE FOR BDS/COMMISSIONS

Sponsor Rep. Doogan who presented the bill to the Committee.  There was some question for a while about exactly what problem the bill was solving.  Basically the bill would require that people serving on 98 specific State Boards and Commissions (the number 120 was also mentioned, so I'm not completely sure) would have to resign if they decided to run for state or federal office.  They also would have a one year waiting period before they could get back on a board.  The intent, as I understood it, was threefold:
1.  So that people weren't in a position to solicit campaign funds from people subject to decisions of the board they served.
2.  To make sure there was no perception of a conflict of interest by the public.
3.  To not give a candidates 'a leg up' from the State when they run for office
An aide also mentioned that the Department of Law had noted that there is a potential separation of powers question the way things work now.

Questions revolved around whether this would make it even harder to get good people to sit on boards and commissions as well as on details about how it would work.

There was also a bit of good-natured humor.  Rep. Gatto was suggesting that public minded citizens who served on boards would be penalized for running for office.  Then Rep. Johnson came to Rep. Doogan's defense.

Johnson:  I think Rep. Gatto gave us a great example of why someone should resign.  If you have a group you could help, those folks would contribute.  Win or lose, that guy will either be on the Board of Fish or the legislature.  That's why I think this is a good piece of legislation.
Doogan:  Could we have Rep. Johnson repeat what he said? 

The bill was held to clear up a few technical issues that arose. 



Photo:  Outside (or sometimes inside) all the conference rooms there's a little table with copies of the bills and other related materials plus a sign up sheet for people who want to testify.