Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB83 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB136 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 123 | ||
| + | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 149 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act relating to further regulation of the sale,
possession, and delivery of certain chemicals and
precursors used in the manufacture of methamphetamine."
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to RESCIND the committee's previous
action to adopt HB 149. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Ms. Cunningham explained that when the bill was taken up
before the committee yesterday, Amendment 1 was adopted. It
involved confidentiality issues regarding customers who
purchase selected ingredients. Legislative Legal determined
that it was not necessary to link the confidentiality issue
to the Public Information Act, AS 40.25.100 - 40.25.220,
because retailers are not a public entity or agency such as
state government, which would be subjected to this law.
Co-Chair Meyer explained that the bill already contains
Amendment 1.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 9, lines 20-22:
Delete all material.
Insert "have access to the log. The log and the
information entered into the log is confidential. The
retailer may not allow access to the log or release
information contained within the log except to the
Department of Public Safety or other law enforcement
officers."
He explained that the amendment makes it clear that an
individual's privacy is protected when they are required to
sign a log when purchasing Sudafed. The information is kept
confidential and the data will not be used inappropriately.
2:01:25 PM
Representative Croft commented about how the Freedom of
Information Act applies when the log is in the possession of
Public Safety. He wondered what is so private about this
record.
Representative Hawker stated that this is a mandate that
protects the person who signs a log, and that makes this
information confidential. He voiced concern about requiring
retailers to keep records without the protection of privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, sponsor, spoke about the personal
information contained on the Fred Meyer Rewards card. He
concurred with Amendment 2, but noted that he does not want
to lose sight of the intent of the bill.
2:06:03 PM
Representative Hawker referred to Representative Croft's
concern about confidentiality should law enforcement
agencies avail themselves of these records. He agreed that
the problem is taken care of in statute.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:07:09 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 3:
In Section 11, following subsection (e), insert
language to the following effect:
If a law enforcement agency voluntarily designates
itself as a central repository for the information
collected in (a) or (b) in this section, with the
intention of disseminating the information to other law
enforcement agencies, each wholesaler, manufacturer,
and distributor shall regularly report that information
to the law enforcement agency.
Representative Weyhrauch OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Croft explored the reasoning behind the
amendment. He questioned how to establish the process of
reporting the information in the logs to law enforcement
agencies.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the law enforcement agency is
responsible for voluntarily sharing the information.
Representative Ramras referred to page 10 of the bill and
pointed out that this concern is addressed in Section (e).
He noted that there are certain communities that have a more
severe methamphetamine problem and will have an acute
approach; others don't need to gather the information into a
central depository site. He stated opposition to Amendment
3 because it could require one law enforcement agency to
require all others to comply. He maintained that this issue
was adequately addressed in House Judiciary Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer termed it a "local option". Representative
Ramras agreed. For example, Barrow does not have the same
problem that MatSu or North Pole have.
2:12:49 PM
Representative Croft asked what would happen if one
community decides to do this and the neighboring community
does not. Representative Ramras replied that the Department
of Public Safety agrees with this language. He pointed out
that local law enforcement agencies tend to cooperate in
these matters.
Representative Croft WITHDREW Amendment 3.
2:14:22 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if the logbook is actually
going to be used as a deterrent. Representative Ramras
responded that it is a deterrent to these types of
criminals. They will not buy these substances if they know
they have to show identification and sign a log.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 149 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 149 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with the following fiscal impact
notes: zero note #1 by the Alaska Court System, zero note
#2 by the Department of Law, indeterminate note #3 by the
Department of Administration, indeterminate note #4 by the
Department of Corrections.
2:17:58 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|