Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/05/2018 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearings: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board: Verne Boerner | |
| HB240 | |
| HB219 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties
require access to certain federal tax information;
relating to persons under contract with the state with
access to certain federal tax information;
establishing state personnel procedures required for
employee access to certain federal tax information;
and providing for an effective date."
1:56:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the committee last heard the
bill on March 28, 2018. The committee had one amendment
before them. He invited Mr. Spanos to the table.
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, reported that Internal Revenue
Service Publication 1075 listed all the requirements that
states were obligated to follow to receive federal tax
information. He elaborated that the requirement to do
background checks and fingerprinting as part of a
background check was in the publication and was the impetus
of the bill. At the Department of Revenue (DOR) there were
two divisions that received the data. The Tax Division
wanted to continue to receive the data to verify
information received by tax payers. The Division of Child
Support received very limited information. A federal offset
program allowed the division to capture money that would be
refunded to tax payers to pay child support. He conveyed
that he had misspoken at the last bill hearing. He had
reported that the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DOL) received data to verify wage information.
He was incorrect on that point. The department also did the
federal offset program and recaptured unemployment
insurance that was paid out in error.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file):
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) An employee shall pay to the state the
fee established by AS 12.62.160 for the
national criminal history record check or
the date of hire, whichever occurs later,
the fee must automatically be deducted from
the employee's next paycheck."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
commented that the state did not have a significant amount
of money. She wanted to make sure the employee was hired
before collecting the fee.
Representative Kawasaki asked if an employee would have to
pay the fee if they worked at DOR, for example.
Representative Wilson replied that it was free at the
Department of Corrections (DOC). She did not know when the
federal law would change to include more employees. She
noted that as part of employment a person many times had to
have a drug test or had to fulfill other requirements. She
suggested it should be the responsibility of the employee,
rather than the state, to cover the costs.
2:00:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki indicated in the health care
setting fingerprinting was typically required. He recalled
in his experience having to get fingerprinted within the
first 30 days of employment. He did not remember having to
pay for the fingerprinting costs; his employer paid the
costs. He wondered if someone else could speak to the
employer normally paying the fees. He also asked how the
amendment might affect the labor unions. Representative
Wilson responded that in her experience she was required to
have a Tuberculosis test as a condition of employment. She
paid the cost for the test. She imagined that some
employers paid the fee, and some expected their employees
to pay. She did not feel that the state was in a position
to pay the fees.
Representative Thompson agreed with Representative Wilson
that many industries required their employees to be
fingerprinted and to have a background check at the
employee's expense. He referenced the liquor industry and
employees having to pay for their own Techniques of Service
Industry Alcohol Management (TAM) training. He would be
supporting the bill.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the list of available testifiers
online.
Representative Pruitt relayed a personal example. Fifteen
years prior when he worked for the Anchorage School
District he was required to pay for his own fingerprinting.
Representative Kawasaki directed his question to the
Division of Personnel. He wondered about current collective
bargaining agreements and whether the state paying for fees
was part of negotiations. He wondered if fees should be
built into future contracts.
2:04:44 PM
KATE SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR
RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, responded that it
was something that would need to be bargained with the
unions.
Co-Chair Seaton wondered if state insurance would pay the
fees. He was considering the wording in the bill
referencing the employee paying the fee. He wondered how
much the fee was. He had heard that the cost of
fingerprinting was about $47. He did not know the cost of
the national criminal history record check. He wondered
about additional expenses including the time it took to
have a background check and fingerprinting done. Ms.
Sheehan believed it involved more than the finger printing.
She was not sure.
Co-Chair Seaton asked the sponsor about the intent of the
amendment. He wondered if it included the time and
administrative time that went into the national criminal
history check. He referred to line 4. He did not see
anything about fingerprinting fee. Representative Wilson
responded that the language came from the bill. She cited
the section and lines. She responded that the fee was the
same fee that the employee would be required to pay.
Co-Chair Seaton was having a problem with line 19 on
page 3. Representative Wilson explained that it was the
place the amendment would be inserted. The line referred
back to AS 12.62.160 listed in Section 1 on page 1. It was
also her understanding that the fee was associated with the
background check rather than the fingerprinting. She
relayed that child care providers and school employees were
required to have fingerprinting done. She suggested that
since DOC had the ability to conduct fingerprinting, maybe
the department could offer the service to other departments
free of charge.
2:08:23 PM
Co-Chair Seaton was trying to better understand the
amendment. He read from the amendment which talked about
fingerprints. He wondered if the amendment was only talking
about fingerprinting. Representative Wilson read from the
bill on page 1. It was her understanding that it would be
the entire fee of approximately $47 as listed in the fiscal
note.
Representative Guttenberg asked Ms. Sheehan if the current
contracts would have to lapse and be renegotiated to
include the new provision. He wondered if the legislation
would apply to people under current contracts. Ms. Sheehan
responded that it would apply. The state's collective
bargaining agreements contained a clause that stated that
if there was something that did not comply with state or
federal law the parties would meet and negotiate. If the
provision became law, the state would have to meet with the
unions and renegotiate prior to the contracts lapsing.
Representative Guttenberg asked her to repeat her response.
Ms. Sheehan indicated the department would have to meet and
negotiate with the unions. It would not be automatic.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the amendment talked
about two things; fingerprinting and the national criminal
history check. There was a cost for fingerprinting and for
the history check. He asked if lost time getting
fingerprints taken was factored or if the state would bring
someone in-house. He asked about the process. Ms. Sheehan
was unsure of the process. She did not know if it was an
option to bring someone in. She was aware that DOC did
fingerprinting in-house for employees on their first day of
work. She was uncertain if there was an operation that came
into the workplace or if an employee would need to leave
work. She was also unsure if an employee could do the check
on work time or if they would have to do it in their free
time.
Representative Guttenberg asked about employees having to
do the checks outside of work time and whether that would
have to be part of negotiations with the bargaining group.
Ms. Sheehan replied, "Not necessarily." She elaborated that
there were things employees were required to do in their
free time.
2:12:31 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted that for continued employment
there was currently a clause within the collective
bargaining agreement that stated that if there were changes
to federal law, the entities could go back to the table to
negotiate. The legislation would force it. If the amendment
was added, it would require an employee in the Tax Division
to be fingerprinted and, because of federal law, it would
have to come out of the employee's paycheck. He asked if
that was what would be negotiated. Ms. Sheehan thought
there would be several things that would have to be
addressed. She noted that the employee would be required to
pay for their fingerprinting and for the background check.
She was uncertain the state would be able to deduct the
fees from their pay under the federal fair labor standards
act. Some employees were paid each hour or minute they
worked. It would have to be discussed at the table. If a
current employee were to fail a background check the state
would have to do a type of effects bargaining.
Representative Kawasaki had a problem with implementing the
standard for a current employee. He thought it made more
sense for future employees.
Vice-Chair Gara was unclear which employees would have to
undergo background checks. It was now a condition of
employment to comply with federal law. For an employee who
worked for the state, the issue could be handled in two
ways; The state could pay for it or the employee could pay
for it. In his view, employees went through 2 years of wage
freezes. It was not a luxury item; it was something an
employee was required by their employer to do to comply
with federal law. He asked if he was accurate that the
checks were a condition of employment. Ms. Sheehan
responded, "Yes it would be."
Vice-Chair Gara did not support the amendment for charging
the fees to perspective employees applying for a job. He
did not agree with such a condition of employment.
Representative Wilson asked why state employees could not
go through DOC. She wondered if anyone had investigated the
option. Ms. Sheehan had not looked at the option.
She reported reaching out to as many agencies as possible.
The Department of Corrections and Department of Public
Safety (DPS) did fingerprinting and background checks in-
house because of the nature of their work. She was unsure
DOC could extend the service to other state employees.
Representative Wilson thought it would be worthwhile
looking into the idea. She was fine with the suggestion of
the amendment applying only to new employees. She
understood that $47 was not very much. However, she
believed every little bit added up. She wanted to make sure
an employee had been hired before requiring the checks.
2:17:34 PM
Representative Guttenberg thought the committee was talking
about state employees. He wondered about state background
checks versus federal background checks. He asked about the
difference. He spoke of privacy matters. Mr. Spanos
responded that the state's background check was fairly
current in response to the IRS publication. The publication
had been around for a long time but was updated in 2017 and
contained the background check and fingerprinting
requirement. The department created a new policy for the
state's background check. Currently, a local background
check was required which included all of the states. If a
person committed a crime and was convicted at the state
level, it would show up on the background check. The
national background check was a federal level screening. If
a person was convicted of a crime at the federal level, it
would show up on the national background check. The
fingerprinting and the federal background check were the
things the state needed to start doing.
Representative Guttenberg asked, if someone committed a
federal crime, if the state's background check would find
the record. Mr. Spanos responded that the record would not
show up in the local background check. The state was doing
a limited federal background check. Sometimes federal
crimes showed up. However, to do a thorough background
check, the state needed fingerprints that were submitted to
the FBI run through their database. Representative
Guttenberg had never been charged for urine tests in his
days working in construction. He thought the state should
be paying for these checks. He would be opposing the
amendment.
2:20:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 1 FAILED (5/6).
Co-Chair Foster asked Vice-Chair Gara to review the fiscal
notes for HB 219. Vice-Chair Gara indicated there were 6
fiscal notes. The first zero fiscal note from DOC had an
appropriation of administration and support and an
allocation of administrative services. The OMB component
number was 697. The second zero fiscal note was from DOL.
The appropriation was employment and training, and the
allocation was unemployment insurance. The OMB component
number was 2276. The third zero fiscal note from DPS had an
appropriation of statewide support and an allocation of
criminal justice information systems program. The OMB
component number was 3200. The fourth fiscal from DOR had
an appropriation of taxation and treasury and an allocation
of tax division. The OMB component number was 2476. The
fiscal note had an impact of $4,800 in FY 19, and in the
out years the fiscal impact went down to $500 per year. The
fifth fiscal note was from DOR. The appropriation was child
support services, and the allocation was child support
services division. The OMB component number was 111. The
fiscal impact in the first year was $6,600 in federal money
and $3,400 in state costs. In the out years the funding
went down to $1,000 in federal funds and $500 in state
costs. The last fiscal note from the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) had an appropriation of
department support services and an allocation of
administrative support services. The zero fiscal note had
an OMB component number of 320. The costs he had referenced
were all for the background check the committee had
discussed.
Representative Wilson asked if DOR could check to see if
there was a way for DOC to do the background checks for
other agencies.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 219 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Seaton had received a note that the FBI waived the
fee for law enforcement agencies including corrections.
Apparently, the background check would include an
additional fee from the FBI.
CSHB 219 (JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations, four "no recommendation"
recommendations, and three "amend" recommendations and with
six previously published fiscal notes, four with zero
impact: FN6(COR), FN7(DHS), FN8(LWF), and FN9(DPS); and two
fiscal impact notes: FN10(REV) and FN11(REV).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 240 Amendment 1.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Support email - petition.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 219 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 219 |