By REP. KEVIN MCCABE
In the Alaska legislative bill process, fiscal notes aren’t just paperwork, they are foundational to the legislative process. They tell us, in dollars and cents, what a proposed bill is going to cost the state. That’s not an optional requirement, its the law, laid out clearly in AS 24.08.035.
These fiscal notes are supposed to be drafted by the state agency most impacted by the bill, giving legislators the facts they need to make informed decisions. But recent developments surrounding HB78 (defined benefits for state employees) and last year’s HB173 have me questioning whether that law is being followed; and whether the process is being compromised.
Let’s be clear. Fiscal notes are meant to protect us from budgetary surprises down the road. They’re there to highlight what a bill will really do to our budget and whether it’s going to save money or cost us more. That only works if the notes are written by professionals who have the right data and the right experience. When that process gets usurped or twisted, and the wrong people are involved, or there’s bias at play, it undermines the whole point.
And frankly, I’m seeing red flags on HB78.
The buzz at the Capitol is that the fiscal note for HB78 (the defined benefits bill) didn’t come from the proper agency, but from a legislative staffer.
If true, that’s a blatant violation of AS 24.08.035. Staffers aren’t impartial experts. They’re often tied to the bill sponsor or the committee, and while they’re hard-working folks, they don’t have the authority or the objectivity to do this job. What we then end up with is something that’s been referred to as a “deep fake” fiscal note. And in this day and age, where misinformation runs rampant, that should concern all of us.
If a staffer generated fiscal note hides the real cost of a bill like HB78, we could end up blindsided, and future legislators could end up dealing with a programmed increase that the state coffers are ill equipped to handle. That’s a threat to responsible government, and it erodes the trust people have in the legislative process.
Now let’s talk about last years HB173 – the so-called “little Davis-Bacon Act.” This one raised the threshold for public construction projects under wage regulation from $25,000 to $150,000. That change makes a lot of sense for our small towns and villages as it reduces red tape and helps projects move forward more affordably. For small villages and cities that bill would have been a game changer. But here’s the issue: I’ve heard that the fiscal note for HB173 may have been drafted or influenced by current or former union members within the Department of Labor.
Technically, the agency involved was the right one. But if the folks writing the fiscal note have a union background – and the bill directly affects union interests – that’s a serious conflict of interest. Even if the numbers are accurate, the perception of bias alone damages credibility. And when you slap a big, inflated fiscal note on a bill that’s supposed to be fiscally conservative, it muddies the waters and discourages smart policy. We cannot afford that kind of manipulation by state agencies. We have got to get serious about protecting the integrity of this process. When fiscal notes are compromised, we face real risks such as:
- They can lead us down a very wrong path.
- They can reflect personal or political bias, rather than cold hard facts.
- They can leverage a vote from a fiscal conservative not to vote for a bill simply because of the expense.
- And most dangerous of all, they chip away at the public’s trust.
If HB78’s defined benefits fiscal note were actually staff generated, it might have huge hidden costs left out to help the bill pass. If HB173’s fiscal note was influenced by union ties, it might’ve exaggerated the costs to make it seem more expensive to get conservatives to vote against it. Either way, legislators are left flying blind when the bill comes for a vote.
Here’s what we need to do:
- Enforce the law. AS 24.08.035 says fiscal notes must come from state agencies. Period. No shortcuts, no loopholes.
- Consider establishing an independent legislative budget office – something neutral and professional, to review or even draft fiscal notes.
- Increase transparency. If someone working on a fiscal note has ties that might affect their objectivity, those affiliations should be disclosed.
- Create strong guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest. Anyone with a direct stake in a bill’s outcome should be nowhere near its fiscal note.
The bottom line is this: Fiscal notes aren’t just technical documents. They’re a cornerstone of honest government. And if our actions let rumors and bias creep into this process, we’re failing the Alaskans who trust us to be good stewards of their money. We owe it to Alaskans to fix this, and we owe it to the institution we serve to demand better.
Rep. Kevin McCabe is a legislator from Big Lake, Alaska.
Another game the Alaska House majority is playing with fiscal notes is avoiding them, and the lack of a fiscal note takes away the need for a referral to the House Finance Committee. The two gun control bills (those I know about, hope there are not more), both authored/sponsored by majority members, have no fiscal notes and no Finance referrals.
Each would be very costly however as Josephson’s red flag bill, HB 89, would authorize and require law enforcement to seize all guns and ammo, without any process, of anyone said by anyone else to be a danger to any other party or parties and Carrick’s HB 134 requires law enforcement to inspect homes of Alaskans for compliance with the bill’s requirement for locked and separate storage of guns and ammo. Clearly there would be huge enforcement and enforcement costs for law enforcement and the justice apparatus yet the lack of fiscal notes, last I looked, meant there is no referral to Finance.
As an aside, and an example, readers may recall that former Congresswoman Peltola said during the campaign she owns 157 long guns. If she has a normal ratio of long guns and handguns she may have 250 guns, and lots of ammo. I would make a wild guess it would require at least ten full days for law enforcement to catalog, seize and store that much stuff, and 3 or 4 days to return it (if the justice system would ever return it). Just imagine how many messy divorces alone would require law enforcement to investigate and seize guns and ammo. So there should be a monstrous fiscal note!
The way the process is intended to work the additional costs to government of a bill has to be budgeted. That adds to the budget of course. Having no fiscal notes for bills that have such obvious and high costs as do HB 89 and HB 134 is crooked politics. Perhaps it’s not as crooked though as running for office as a Republican to then switch allegiances so that honest Republicans are all but entirely shut out of the process and voters in those districts disenfranchised.
Thank You, Kevin, great article. HB 78 should be a no vote. And there should be an investigation on who wrote the fiscal note, staffer for who?
Article seemed to have a lot of “may have” and “I’ve heard” rather than traceable facts..