Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/05/2023 09:30 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB28 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
1:14:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a brief synopsis of the
legislation.
ALLAN RIORDIAN-RANDALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY
WRIGHT, briefly reviewed the bill. He explained that the
bill would limit access and background checks to marijuana
conviction records for low level possession convictions.
Additionally, the bill would codify the actions of the
Alaska Court System so that in the future, no records
addressed in the bill could be put back on CourtView.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two amendments for
consideration. He verified that Representative Tomaszewski
and Representative Coulombe were both online.
1:16:07 PM
AT EASE
1:17:26 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
LS0271\S.3 (Radford, 5/2/23)(copy on file):
Page 3, line 3, following "case;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "; and"
Insert"."
Page 3, lines 5 - 6:
Delete all material.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Tomaszewski explained that the amendment
would delete the fee charged to the individual trying to
get their name removed [from CourtView]. He detailed that
[the fee] was not part of the original bill and had been
added in later. Based on discussions with other committee
members and the bill sponsor he felt it was egregious to
have a fee of not less than $150. The amendment would
eliminate the fee.
Co-Chair Foster stated the amendment would delete the $150
fee for a person to have their name removed. He asked if
there were any questions or comments on the amendment.
Representative Coulombe remarked that she had a lot of
experience hiring sales cashiers and people for retail
jobs. She shared there were times when she had been unable
to pursue someone because of "this kind of thing" on their
record. She fully supported the bill and amendment. She
highlighted that it was not a group who could afford $150
minimum. She stated the last they had heard in committee
was the fee was $150 per conviction to be removed. She
agreed with Representative Tomaszewski that the fee was too
much. She supported the bill and amendment.
1:19:40 PM
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked for the sponsor's staff to state
their position on the amendment.
Mr. Riordian-Randall stated the sponsor viewed it as a
friendly amendment.
Representative Stapp was in favor of the amendment and had
a question about the impact on the fiscal note.
LISA PURINTON, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, the amendment would impact the funding source, but
not the total dollar value. She explained that the funds
would come from general funds instead of program receipts
(derived from the fee).
Representative Stapp stated the department was looking at
hiring an individual to administer [the bill]. He surmised
that if the amendment passed the individual would likely
not need to stay on more than two years because the fee
schedule would be eliminated. He asked if it would be
appropriate to sunset that hire if the amendment passed.
Ms. Purinton replied affirmatively. She elaborated that
when the Department of Public Safety (DPS) did its estimate
for the fiscal note, it had used the total number of
records that could be potentially impacted by the bill and
had determined the research time it took existing staff to
research other records. The department had estimated that
while the person would not be actively serving the public
in processing the requests, they would be researching
historical records in order for existing staff to process
the requests more quickly.
1:22:10 PM
Representative Stapp asked if it was fair to say that the
process would be completed by FY 26.
Ms. Purinton answered that normally she would say yes, but
she could guarantee it based on the current hiring
environment.
Representative Stapp asked if FY 27 was fair.
Ms. Purinton agreed.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1, which would to sunset the temporary hire by
FY 27.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for clarity. She supported
the amendment conceptually but wondered how it pertained to
Amendment 1. She reasoned that the proposed conceptual
amendment was separate from Amendment 1 and pertained to
the fiscal note.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the conceptual amendment with
the intention of offering it later.
1:24:00 PM
Representative Galvin stated the sponsor statement
specified that the goal was to get Alaskans back to work,
which she appreciated. She referenced Representative
Coulombe's point that there were many people she had worked
with who had difficulty finding their way to employment due
to the barrier of having their name in the system from the
infractions in addition to the cost [in the current bill].
She believed the cost "of all of this" balanced with
getting Alaskans back to work made it easy for her to
support the amendment and bill.
Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding that the passage
of the amendment passed would mean there would be an
associated cost. She thought that the inclusion of the
section in the bill resulted in a zero fiscal note because
it would pay for itself with revenues generated.
Ms. Purinton replied it was the way DPS estimated it. She
explained it was a bit of an unknown because the department
did not know the number of people who would come forward.
The department was anticipating there would be sufficient
people to come forward who would pay the fee, which would
cover the cost the department would incur to research the
records and make the programming change.
Co-Chair Johnson highlighted that receiving fees [from
individuals requesting to have their name removed from the
system] would zero out the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster stated the fiscal note included $189,000
that would have come from fees. It was his understanding
that the passage of the amendment would mean there was no
money because the amendment did not address backfilling the
funds with UGF [undesignated general funds]. He surmised it
meant the department would have to absorb the $189,000.
Ms. Purinton answered that DPS would want to submit an
amended fiscal note to specify the funding cost would need
to come from UGF.
1:27:13 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
Senate would have the ability to change the fiscal note
[once it received the bill].
Co-Chair Foster agreed.
Representative Hannan asked if she was correct in assuming
there would be a computer reprogramming cost if the bill
passed regardless of whether one person paid $150, or no
one paid a fee. She thought there was additional cost
related to individuals requesting the removal of their name
out of the system because the cases would have to be
researched individually. She surmised that the fund source
would change if the fee was deleted and the workload
differentiating between individuals who paid to have their
name removed and those who did not would lessen because all
would be treated the same. She asked if she was correct.
Ms. Purinton answered the department would have to pay a
contract programmer to program the mainframe system to
prevent the records from display. The second phase was to
have an individual do the research. She explained that not
all of the disposition information in the state's criminal
history repository had the specific subsections referenced
that clearly identified the qualifying records. She noted
those were fairly easy to address. She explained that the
research would pertain to cases where the department needed
to verify the record was within the scope of under an ounce
of marijuana and over 21 years of age at the time of the
offense.
1:29:35 PM
AT EASE
1:30:44 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Legislative Finance
Division. He made a facetious remark [Mr. Painter had just
entered the room]. He explained that Amendment 1 would
eliminate the $150 fee to have a person's name removed from
past marijuana convictions. He elaborated that the passage
of the amendment would mean there would be no DGF
[designated general funds] for DPS, meaning the department
would have to absorb the cost unless the committee did
something to fix it. He asked about the process.
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that the agency could provide a revised fiscal
note based on the amended bill with fiscal note
forthcoming. The committee could also draft its own fiscal
note, which was usually adopted prior to moving the bill.
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding that the committee
could pass the amendment and use the terminology "with
forthcoming fiscal note" when the bill was reported from
committee.
Mr. Painter agreed that the agency would revise the fiscal
note according to the change made in committee.
1:33:16 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that if the
agency decided not to do a revised fiscal note it would
have to absorb the cost.
Mr. Painter replied that the agency could submit a zero
fiscal note. He explained that the other body could adopt
an agency fiscal note or a committee fiscal note to add the
money or the conference committee could adopt conference
committee fiscal note adding funding. He stated that
ultimately the fiscal note was a reflection of the fiscal
impact of the bill that needed to be adopted into an
appropriation bill. He explained that if the other body or
conference committee felt the agency fiscal note was
inaccurate, they could prepare their own.
Representative Hannan asked what the fiscal note had been
before the House Judiciary Committee had added the $150
fee.
Ms. Purinton replied that the department's fiscal note had
been almost identical to the current note, but the funding
source had been UGF instead of program receipts.
Representative Stapp asked if it was possible to have a
zero fiscal note if there was an added PCN.
Mr. Painter answered that the agency would not request
that. He detailed that the legislature had the ability to
appropriate whatever amount it saw fit.
1:35:21 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked if the committee could just revert
back to the [department's] fiscal note submitted prior to
the change made in the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Painter suspected the agency would just repeat its
prior fiscal note, but it would be updated for the new bill
version.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 33-
LS0271\S.2 (Radford, 5/1/23) (copy on file):
Page 3, lines 7 - 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
There was an OBJECTION.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment had no
fiscal implications. He believed the amendment promoted
good policy and would remove lines 7 through 22 on page 3
of the bill. He detailed that the section directed the
court system to not publish anything about the past records
of previous convictions for marijuana use on CourtView. He
stated the committee had heard from the court system that
it was already doing the work. He reasoned that the section
was not needed. He was in full support of the bill and he
thought it should be made as simple as possible. He
suggested avoiding telling a separate body of government
what it should or should not do when it had already taken
the necessary action.
1:38:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the sponsor had reached out and
requested that the language remain in the bill. He asked
Mr. Riordian-Randall if the bill sponsor was opposed to the
amendment.
Mr. Riordian-Randall agreed.
Representative Ortiz asked Mr. Riordian-Randall to
elaborate on why the bill sponsor was opposed to the
amendment.
Mr. Riordian-Randall believed the reasoning was that the
language in the bill would codify the directive in statute.
He explained that though the court system was currently in
favor of taking the same action, what a future
administration would do was not known.
Co-Chair Foster summarized his understanding of the issue.
He believed Representative Ortiz was indicating the court
system was a separate body with separation of powers and he
perhaps did not want to interfere in another part of
government. Whereas the bill sponsor wanted to include the
language to be certain. The court system was already
removing names, but the bill sponsor wanted to include the
language to make sure it was the case going forward.
1:39:45 PM
Representative Galvin asked for comment from the court
system.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
understood the bill sponsor wanted to keep the language in
the bill as a belt and suspender approach. She detailed
that as she had previously testified, the court system
would prefer to see the language removed to avoid
establishing additional precedent that the legislature had
the ability to tell the court system what to put on its own
website. Additionally, the court system found the language
unnecessary because it had already removed the cases
[online]. That being said, she did not vigorously oppose
the language and it was the committee's call. She
highlighted that the court system viewed CourtView and what
was posted on the site as its purview, just like the
legislature put what it wanted on BASIS. She stated that
the legislature had done it before and putting the language
in statute was the legislature's prerogative.
Representative Josephson directed a question to Ms. Meade.
He remarked that lines 17 to 19 suggested a "wink-wink hey
red flag here, we took something down and you may want to
look into this." He asked if his interpretation was
accurate.
Ms. Meade replied that she did not believe it was what was
meant, and it was not what the court did. She explained
that CourtView contained a notice specifying that many
categories of cases were not on the website, and it was not
to be used as an official criminal history background
check. The website directed users to the Department of
Public Safety for the official criminal history background
check information. The website also showed 15 categories of
cases the court removed. The list included records of
marijuana convictions for individuals over the age of 21
with no other criminal charges in the case. For example,
the court did not put "State versus Josephson (case
removed)" because it was marijuana.
1:43:13 PM
Representative Hannan asked about Ms. Meade's statement
that the legislature had directed the court on CourtView in
the past. She asked how many places in statute the
legislature directed the court system on Courtview.
Ms. Meade answered that in 2015 the legislature passed a
law specifying under AS 22.35 that the court system shall
not publish on a publicly available internet site criminal
cases that end with a dismissal or acquittal of all
charges. She explained that the court had not previously
done so because the court believed it appeared not to be a
straightforward easy call that people should not get these.
She relayed that the legislature had vigorously debated
both sides of whether it should be happening. She
elaborated that the supreme court did not take that step
because it felt it was too controversial. The court
followed the statute after the legislature implemented the
law. Later under SB 91, the legislature had established a
new way of disclosing cases called a suspended entry of
judgement (SEJ) where if a person pled guilty, they got
time to go through a probationary period. She explained
that if the individual did everything right, the judgement
was not entered. The SEJ statute specified that if the
individual did everything right, a judgement would not be
entered and the court system would remove the record from
CourtView. She noted the court system had 15 categories it
took off of CourtView.
1:45:24 PM
The OBJECTION was MAINTAINED.
Representative Ortiz provided wrap up on Amendment 2. He
reiterated his full support for the bill. He explained that
the purpose behind Amendment 2 was to promote good policy
and the idea that the legislature should not step in where
it did not need to step in, particularly on another branch
of government. He stated that the legislature valued the
separation of powers in relationship to the court system
and administration and the legislature should show it was
only attempting to direct policy when needed. He remarked
that the legislature would not necessarily feel good about
the court system stepping into the legislature's purview
when it was not needed. He stated the language was not
needed in the bill and the issue was already being taken
care of.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan
OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coloumbe, Cronk, Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Foster noted the amendment process was concluded.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 28(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 28(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Public Safety and one previously published
zero note: FN1 (AJS).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3 CS WORKDRAFT FIN v S 050423 .pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 28 Amendments 1-2 050423.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 Amendments 1-9 050423.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Amendments 1-9 050423 w Actions 050523.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 DOC Response to HFIN - 050823 .pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 66 |
| HB 3 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050523.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 66 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050523.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 66 |
| HB 28 Public Testimony Red'd by 050523.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2023 9:30:00 AM |
HB 28 |