Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/17/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 134-MASTER GUIDE-OUTFITTER REQUIREMENTS
1:21:45 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the only order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 134(RES), "An Act relating to master
guide-outfitter qualifications for licensure; and providing for
an effective date."
1:22:06 PM
SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced CSSB 134(RES). She explained that the state
extended the Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) under
Senate Bill 43 in 2019, during the Thirty-First Alaska State
Legislature. She said that deliberations revealed frustration
that the board's disciplinary actions were taking too long,
especially those pertaining to master guides. She explained
that SB 43 required the board to revoke the license of a master
guide who had been convicted of violating laws pertaining to
that profession; however, she said, different interpretations of
the wording of the legislation resulted in unintended
consequences. The language in CSSB 134(RES) would clarify the
intention of ensuring people convicted of "more serious
violations" of professional rules cannot continue to hold a
master guide license. Specifically, she said, CSSB 134(RES)
would limit the requirement for automatic license revocation for
only serious violations, defined as those where a master guide
has been convicted and sentenced to more than one day in jail,
or a fine of more than $1,500.
SENATOR VON IMHOF stressed that the proposed legislation would
speed up the process only when a person has been convicted and
had a sentence imposed. She expressed that the reason for the
condition is that, while a master guide license does not confer
any additional hunting rights, it is an honorary designation
given to registered guides who have demonstrated a long history
of excellence. Should a master guide license be revoked, she
clarified, the registered guide license could remain intact,
allowing a guide to continue working in their profession. She
said that the effective date would be retroactive to when the
faulty language was put into place, thereby providing
consistency while encouraging self-reporting and resolution of
any small violations. She said, "As far as we know, there have
not been any licenses revoked or issued since that date, so the
department and our lawyers don't see any problem with the
retroactivity at this time." She noted that, with the hunting
season underway, it's important to address the issue soon, as
it's causing tension between enforcement and guides, as well as
being is a disincentive for guides to come clean about small
violations.
1:25:19 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on SB 134. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
1:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE referred to the text of CSSB 134(RES),
page 2, lines 4-9, which read as follows:
(4) has not been convicted of an offense under AS
08.54.720(a) or a similar law in another jurisdiction
related to hunting or to the provision of big game
hunting or transportation services within the five
[15] years preceding the date of the application for
which
(A) the person was imprisoned for more than one
day; or
(B) an unsuspended fine of more than $1,500 was
imposed
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE expressed his opinion that changing the
requirement from 15 years to five years seems like a drastic
change, and he asked why that decision was made.
JULI LUCKY, Staff, Senator Natasha von Imhof, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator von Imhof, prime sponsor,
explained that BGCSB made the recommendations in the proposed
legislation, and noted there is a representative from the board
available to answer questions. She also pointed out that the
language referenced by Representative Schrage, in addition to
the language amended on page 2, lines 23-24, was not put in
place until SB 43 passed, so the lookback period was part of the
initial, faulty language. When the board went to conform the
faulty language to existing statute, she said, it was found that
the existing statute for the registered guide lookback period
was five years, so the master guide lookback period was
conformed to match. She noted that the 15-year lookback period
has not been used because no master guide licenses have been
issued since SB 43 went into effect.
MS. LUCKY then paraphrased the sectional analysis of the
proposed legislation, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1: Amends AS 08.54.610(b), which outlines the
requirements to obtain a master guide-outfitter
license, to limit the violations that would make a
person ineligible to receive a license.
Specifically, the amendment limits the look back
period to five years and would only apply after
conviction for an offense where the person was
imprisoned for more than one day or there was a fine
of more than $1,500 imposed. It also prohibits
granting a master guide-outfitter license to an
individual that has had a hunting, guiding,
outfitting, transporter or similar license revoked in
another jurisdiction.
Sec. 2: Amends AS 08.54.710(k), which requires
revocation of a master guide-outfitter license in
certain circumstances, to limit the violations that
would require revocation, similar to the language in
section one, to an offense for which a person is
imprisoned for more than one day or a fine of more
than $1,500 is imposed.
The Senate Resources Committee CS added Sections 3 & 4
to the bill:
(only change between version I and version G)
Sec. 3 & 4: Make the bill retroactively effective to
September 14, 2019, which was the date that the
sections above became law. The retroactive effective
date would provide consistency for Master Guides and
the Big Game Commercial Services Board.
Since no licenses have been revoked or denied under
these statutes to date, the legislation codifies the
initial intent of the legislature, and the legislation
reduces the types of violations that would require a
revocation, there are not ex post facto concerns with
a retroactive effective date for this bill.
1:30:19 PM
RENEE HOFFARD, Executive Administrator, Big Game Commercial
Services Board, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development, explained that the intent of CSSB 134(RES)
is to "mirror" the eligibility for licenses under AS 08.54.605,
part of which says that a person is not eligible to hold any
class of guide license if they've been convicted of any state or
federal hunting, guiding, or transportation services statute or
regulation resulting in imprisonment for more than five days
within the previous five years, or had an unsuspended fine of
more than $2,000, $3,000, or $5,000 imposed in the previous 12,
36, and 60 months, respectively. A master guide license
applicant is required to have held a registered guide license
for 15 of the last 20 years in order to be eligible, she said,
so "no one would potentially be eligible to even apply for a
master guide license if they've had a violation within the last
15 years. It would make it almost impossible for anyone to
qualify for that master guide license."
1:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that under HB 134, the lookback for
any of the aforementioned disqualifiers is five years, while the
requirement for a master guide license is having a registered
guide license for 15 of the previous 20 years. He said "I can
imagine a situation in which someone is a registered guide,
takes a five-year break, and then applies to be a master guide
and the lookback doesn't even cover any time in which this
individual is a registered guide." He asked Ms. Hoffard whether
she could comment on that.
MS. HOFFARD said that registered guides are allowed a license
lapse period of only four years, then they have to reapply.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that in that case, the lookback
period could consist of only one year of registered guide
activity. He noted his support of the proposed legislation, but
expressed concerns about having only a five-year lookback and
said that he may offer a conceptional amendment of 10 years to
cover an active portion of the registered guide's license period
more thoroughly.
1:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed her concern over the unsuspended
fine threshold of $1,500. She said that guides frequently have
multiple violations with a cash fine or less than $1,500;
however, the guide may have forfeited his boat or plane.
MS. HOFFARD responded that as part of its research into the
possible corrections under SB 135, the board inspected criminal
actions taken against guides starting in 2011. Between 2011 and
2020, she said, there were only six master guides with
disciplinary actions resulting from criminal convictions. Of
those 6, she said, "only two had anything even remotely close to
the $1,500" recommended by the board. She noted that the BGCSB
worked with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers and the Department of
Law to arrive at a figure which would result from offenses
egregious enough to meet that threshold. She offered to
research and provide additional information.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for further explanation on the
unsuspended fines between 2011 and 2020.
MS. HOFFARD replied, "They had one that it was a $65,000 fine,
$30,000 unsuspended. The other one was a $35,000 fine, and none
of that was suspended."
MS. LUCKY noted that the supporting document, "Big Game
Commercial Services Board Minutes of the teleconference held
February 20, 2020" [included in the committee packet], includes
the six disciplinary actions. She clarified that the table on
page 9 shows the details of the disciplinary actions.
SENATOR VON IMHOF said that she would have no objections to
Representative Schrage's conceptual amendment.
MS. LUCKY directed attention to page 9 or the supporting
document, which lists six line items under the heading "Master
Guide - Outfitter", showing revocation of licenses in line items
1 and 4, with the large fines of $65,000 and $35,000, as
previously mentioned. She pointed out that the other four line
items showed fines of less than $1,500, with no commensurate
revocation. Ms. Lucky noted that she compiled the related
statutes in a document [included in the committee packet] titled
"Senate Bill 134 Related Statutes," directing attention to AS
08.54.605(1)(B), which specified the five-year lookback period.
She said that the intent of CSSB 134(RES) was to conform to
current statute as recommended by the board, thereby minimizing
any additional unintended consequences based on how the language
is interpreted.
1:40:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out AS 08.54.605(a)(1)(A)(i),
which read, "the person was imprisoned for more than five days
within the previous five years;" and asked whether CSSB 134(RES)
includes the same language.
MS. LUCKY replied that the proposed legislation would specify an
imprisonment period of "more than one day." She said the intent
of the proposed legislation was to hold the master guides to a
higher standard than registered guides. She directed attention
to CSSB 134(RES), page 2, lines 24-25, which read, "(A) the
person is imprisoned for more than one day; or (B) an
unsuspended fine of more than $1,500 is imposed." She described
this language as "narrowing of the offenses for which a license
can be revoked."
1:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked what would happen if there was a
single incident resulting in two violations which, when
combined, exceeded the $1,500 threshold.
MS. LUCKY deferred to Ms. Hoffard.
MS. HOFFARD responded, "Those would be considered separate
offenses, because it would be a separate criminal act for each
violation."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said that the way the proposed legislation
is written, if one incident included multiple violations, each
of which resulted in a fine under $1,500, there would not
necessarily be a license revocation.
MS. HOFFARD replied that such an occurrence would not trigger an
automatic revocation; however, the board may choose to revoke
the license based on multiple violations.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Ms. Lucky whether the question of
multiple violations had been previously discussed, and if so,
whether discretionary revocation is the right approach.
MS. LUCKY replied, "Our intent with this bill was to fix the
problem." She said that, in drafting the proposed legislation,
BGCSB, as the regulator of the professionals in the field, was
asked for recommendations. She specified that the intent was to
not create a different set of statutes and regulations, but to
keep it as close as possible to existing statutes in order to
minimize conflict. She stressed that the board has the ability
to revoke any license as a matter of disciplinary action, and
that a single fine of $1,500 or more would be one of the few
times that the legislature felt that an immediate revocation,
after a court case for a criminal violation of their
professional responsibilities, was in order. The proposed
legislation, she said, doesn't limit or expand the ability of
BGCSB to impose disciplinary actions under existing statute.
1:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the board has discretion to
decide against issuing a master guide license in the case of
multiple violations.
MS. LUCKY replied that this proposed legislation would not
change the eligibility requirements for master guide licensure.
1:47:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Ms. Lucky for a description of the
board's process when considering revocation.
MS. LUCKY deferred to Ms. Hoffard.
MS. HOFFARD explained that in a criminal case, the Alaska
Wildlife Troopers would notify the board that charges have been
filed against a license holder. The board's investigator would
notify the license holder that the license is under
investigation; however, the board's investigation doesn't
commence until the state's criminal proceeding is concluded. If
the criminal proceeding results in a conviction, she said, a
reviewing board member would work with the Department of Law and
the investigator, using precedent, to offer a consent agreement
or revocation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "Is there anything that
constitutes jail time, or is it all probation?"
MS. HOFFARD replied that the board doesn't have the authority to
impose jail time, but the guide's license could be put on
probation.
1:49:28 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked Ms. Hoffard whether the board would conduct
an investigation if an individual is not convicted of the crime.
MS. HOFFARD responded that the board would still investigate to
determine whether a license holder committed any ethical
violations.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether there is any statute that mandates
an investigation by the board.
MS. HOFFARD replied that the board is required to investigate
any complaint, which would include a notification of
investigation by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that Conceptual Amendment 1
would replace the word "five" with "ten" on page 2, line 6, of
CSSB 134(RES).
CHAIR PATKOTAK explained for Representative Rauscher that
Conceptual Amendment 1 addresses the lookback period for master
guide licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that while five years is in line
with the lookback period for a registered guide license, a
master guide license is a more prestigious title recognizing
"excellence over a long history." He pointed out that
eligibility requirements for a master guide license state that
the applicant must have been a registered guide for 15 of the
past 20 years, with an allowed lapse of four years, which could
potentially mean a lookback period of only one year.
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that Senator von Imhof expressed acceptance
of Conceptual Amendment 1. He then asked Ms. Hoffard how she
would "see this amendment being deployed."
MS. HOFFARD replied that she has not had the opportunity to
confer with the board members and, therefore, is not comfortable
speaking for them on this matter.
1:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that adopting Conceptual Amendment 1
would "neuter half of the bill." He expressed the understanding
that Conceptual Amendment 1 would remove the lookback period
provision.
CHAIR PATKOTAK explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 would not
eliminate the lookback period, but would extend to ten years.
1:54:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his understanding that the main
intent of CSSB 134(RES) was to address the circumstances for
automatic revocation of a master guide license, rather than
addressing the lookback period.
MS. LUCKY stated her agreement that the primary intention of the
proposed legislation is to determine the conditions for
automatic revocation of a master guide license, with the sponsor
remaining neutral on the matter of the length of the lookback
period. She clarified that "the whole point of the bill is to
remedy unintended consequences of law that we passed, as further
interpreted by the board." She said that the sponsor's only
concern would be that, since the board came up with the
recommendation of a five-year lookback period, and Ms. Hoffard
can't say whether a 10-year lookback period would be difficult
to implement, Conceptual Amendment 1 could be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed disagreement with Representative
McKay's assertion that Conceptual Amendment 1 would considerably
affect the proposed legislation.
1:56:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that a five-year lookback
period is referenced twice in the proposed legislation, on page
2, in lines 6 and 13, and expressed the need for consistency in
language. She discussed the importance of understanding that
the intention in giving the board the provisions for automatic
revocation was that the board's authority should be invoked for
those who are regularly incurring criminal violations, and that
a master guide should not lose their business over minor
infractions
CHAIR PATKOTAK stressed that with Conceptual Amendment 1, a
conviction within the past 10 years would result in an automatic
license revocation, and that it's possible to have a license
revoked without actually have been convicted of anything. He
expressed that there is merit to having separate time frames
when considering new master guide licenses versus possibly
revoking existing licenses.
1:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that Section 1, which would be
affected by Conceptual Amendment 1, considers the issuance of a
master guide license, while Section 2, which would not be
affected by the amendment, sets guidelines for revocation. He
clarified that his intention in moving to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 was to amend the language in both sections, page 2,
lines 6 and 13.
CHAIR PATKOTAK recommended withdrawal of Conceptual Amendment 1
and moving an amendment that addresses both areas.
1:59:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed that he would like to hear
testimony from master guides on the matter of the lookback
period.
2:00:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated his agreement with Representative
Cronk. He also expressed that he would need more information in
order to form an educated opinion.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked Ms. Hoffard whether it would be possible to
confer with the board.
2:01:04 PM
MS. HOFFARD said that she could reach out to the two registered
guides currently sitting on the board; however, as it is spring
bear season, they may not be reachable.
2:01:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 and moved
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
2:01:30 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
2:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that Conceptual Amendment 2
would replace the word "five" with "ten" on page 2, lines 6 and
on page 2, line 13. He expressed that this amendment would help
ensure that master guides uphold the highest standards of their
profession, and he noted that the previous standard under
statute was 15 years.
2:02:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. Lucky whether she believes
Senator von Imhof, as prime sponsor of CSSB 134(RES), would have
any issue with Conceptual Amendment 2.
MS. LUCKY replied that she doesn't believe there would be a
policy concern. She expressed concern in how a ten-year
lookback period would work with the board's existing statute and
process, and that the BGCSB, after discussion, recommended a
five-year lookback period. She said that she doesn't see a
statutory conflict with having a ten-year lookback period within
the eligibility section under AS 08.54.610(b)(4) of the proposed
legislation, but that Conceptual Amendment 2, altering the
aforementioned paragraph as well as the language in AS
08.54.610(b)(5) could pose a conflict. She said that, without
having any assurances from the board that there would be no
conflict, the concern remains.
2:06:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that AS 08.54.610(b)(5), as amended
in the proposed legislation, seems to be in conflict with the
language in as AS 08.54.610(a)(2), which doesn't include a
lookback period. He said, "It seems to me that that conflict
already exists, and [if] we're going to pass this bill and have
that conflict, it wouldn't make much of a difference whether
it's five or ten years."
2:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed that he's comfortable with
Conceptual Amendment 2 and recommended taking action on the
amendment today.
2:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated his intention to object and said
that the House Finance Committee could vet the amendment.
CHAIR PATKOTAK said that SB 134 doesn't have a referral to the
House Finance Committee.
2:07:55 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER suggesting vetting the amendment before
going to the floor.
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed that the language in CSSB
134(RES) reflects what was intended by the board, which should
be adhered to.
2:08:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
2:10:54 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection.
2:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected and stated that he won't support
Conceptual Amendment 2 without any public input from those
invested in the issue.
2:11:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected.
2:11:42 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hopkins,
Schrage, and Hannan voted in favor of *. Representatives McKay,
Cronk, Gillham, Rauscher, and Patkotak voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5-4.
2:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report CSSB 134(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
2:12:52 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion. There being
no discussion, he withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, CSSB 134(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 134 Background - Related Statutes.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Sponsor Statement 4.30.2021.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Support Letter APHA 5.5.21.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Support Doc-BGCSB Final minutes 2.2020.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Sectional Analysis & Summary of Changes v. G 5.07.2021.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB 134 Testimony - Received as of 5.04.2021.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 134 |