Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/13/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 411-PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE Number 0098 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 411, "An Act relating to an optional election to prevent the name and address of a permanent fund dividend applicant from being disclosed, except to a state or federal agency." Number 0091 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 411, explained that the proposed legislation is a privacy measure regarding the permanent fund dividend (PFD), which would direct the government to "keep some of the information we give confidential." He indicated that confidential information includes [an applicant's] name and residential address, for example. He stated that it's a right under "our constitution" to keep that information private. TAPE 04-60, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered an example of why a citizen may want that [information] kept private. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT turned to the fiscal note. He directed attention to [page 1, beginning on line 10], which read as follows: Notwithstanding other provisions, if a confidentiality election is made under this section, the department may only release the name and address (1) to a state or federal agency; (2) in compliance with a court order; or (3) as directed by the individual who made the confidentiality election. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated a portion of the fiscal note analysis, which read as follows: The bill as written does not allow sharing of the information with local government agencies. If we cannot share the file, or if the file is not complete, local government agencies will submit their full lists to PFD and we will have to do the matching process. Approximately 60,000 garnishments will need to be keyed in to the system and matched. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the Senate discussed allowing the names to be put on the web, but not the addresses, because having access to the names may help in the prevention of fraud. He offered an example. Number 0127 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to a letter [included in the committee packet] from a woman [who survived domestic violence] and has changed her social security number and name. He asked how it would matter if the name was accessible if it's a new name anyway. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the name change process itself is public; therefore, the perpetrator could go to the court and find that information. He emphasized that the important concept behind the bill is to enable people to have control over what information the government advertises about them. He mentioned the "check box" approach, but said he would be amenable to any approach that helps protect the privacy of PFD applicants. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about the court system, which uses PFD lists for its jury duty lists. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered his understanding that would be categorized as a state agency. Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there have been a significant number of people that are reported on fraud, based on the publication of the list on the web. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, "That was a concern that was raised in the Senate hearings on the bill." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether there was any reason to supply a list of PFD applicants. He clarified, "Is there any reason why each person should have to select 'confidential' or 'nonconfidential'?" He surmised that the biggest reason to get names on a list is for purposes of advertisers. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he generally agrees with Representative Seaton on this issue. He said he doesn't see much public justification for supplying the list. Giving the individual the option would be fine, he said. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about individuals who owe debt. He noted that the Alaska permanent fund is a source of income to pay off debt. He said, "This would not prohibit a creditor from getting information, at all, from the [Permanent Fund Dividend Division] in order to collect on a debt through the PFD check." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he hopes not. He indicated that would involve a court order [which is one of the exceptions to the confidentiality rule listed in Section 1 of the bill]. Number 0458 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if writ of execution would be such an order. He said he would like the language to include that. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thought the language [in Section 1, paragraph (2)] would cover that, but he added that it would be fine to clarify that language. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he can't think of any other reason why people would have to access that information. Number 0536 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH questioned why a federal agency would be allowed access. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that he didn't want to get in the way of the creditor - somebody who is legitimately owed money - or "sort of legitimate governmental purposes." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that bounty hunters might need this information. Number 0615 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the committee might be able to change some of the bill's language in which people would have to specify that they do want the information to be shared. [HB 411 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|