Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/20/2004 08:03 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 1940 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last 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 1932 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 411, Version 23-LS1568\D, as a work draft. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for discussion purposes. Number 1881 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 411, noted that there is another committee substitute, Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook, 4/15/04, which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )", but is in the committee packets with "SENATE" crossed out and changed to "HOUSE" and "284" crossed out and changed to "411". He explained that [Version H] proposes putting the permanent fund dividend (PFD) applicants' names on the web site, but not the applicants' addresses. He explained that there are two approaches to the legislation: a check box method or the approach that includes names, but not addresses. Number 1794 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the legislation which will most protect people's privacy is the preferred course to follow. He said choosing to receive a PFD shouldn't require that private information be disclosed. He indicated that the version offered in the other body is somewhat preferable. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that [Version H] addresses the concern stated by Representative Coghill [at a prior hearing on HB 411] regarding opting in and opting out. He explained that [Version H] would "opt everyone out for the address," so people wouldn't have to look for and check a box to prevent their addresses from being listed. Number 1746 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his preference for [Version D], but he suggested that the committee "walk through the differences" to consider using language from [Version H]. Number 1720 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 1, to replace line 12, on page 1 of Version D, with line 9, on page 1 of Version H. [Page 1, line 12 read as follows:] (1) to a state or federal agency; [Page 1, line 9 read as follows:] (1) to a local, state, or federal government agency; CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained, "We have a CS before us for discussion purposes, and there's an objection, and the sponsor has provided a Senate bill, which he's proposing to just supplant the existing House bill before us. Is it your -- you sort of have to have a policy matter here to work off the bill that's before us, or withdraw the motion on that and work off the proposed CS." Number 1689 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion. Number 1679 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems that it's a much less complicated system to restrict the address information; therefore, he stated that he supports the Senate version. Number 1948 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to "moving the CS for HB 411" [Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook, 4/15/04, which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( ) as a work draft]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Representative Gruenberg had stated an objection. Number 1636 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that, in [Version D], both the names and addresses are confidential. He stated that he thinks the names should be confidential. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he disagrees. He said one of the reasons that the names are so important is so that those who live in Alaska can make accusations against those who commit fraud against the system. He referred to [the letter in the committee packet from a woman whose ability to keep her identity private is a matter of life and death] and surmised that people in that sort of situation would generally have changed their names, and he said that he hoped the person who was trying to track them down wouldn't have any way to make a connection. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the name change, stated that [an adult] who changes his/her name "has to publish." A different rule applies to changing the name of a minor; the other parent must be notified. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM suggested that legislation may need to be enacted, possibly to give people the option of "some type of review under domestic abuse." Number 1512 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered the following consideration: In my experience as a law clerk, the court took a petition for name change in camera and protected the person who was subjected to potential murder, and had it within their jurisdiction to deal with that without (indisc. -- vocal level dropped). REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated, "Were I to face murder or the murder of my children, I can assure you, to perjure myself would not be a problem. And I don't think anyone would argue with it." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his preference is for [Version H from the Senate]. However, he said he has a philosophical problem, because [the PFD] is the public's resource and he thinks that if people want to claim money, then other people ought to know who is doing the claiming. He surmised that since it's the people's fund, it's fine to let the people review and debate the issue. Number 1449 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection [to adopting the committee substitute (CS) for HB 422, Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook, 4/15/04, which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )" as a work draft]. There being no further objection, Version H was before the committee. Number 1445 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version H] as follows: On page 1, line 10: Between "court order" and ";" Insert "including a rit of execution" REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that, in a situation where someone owes a person money, a writ of execution is required by the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, in order to lay claim on the debtor's PFD to pay off the debt. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted for the record that Ms. Barton, from the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, nodded her head in concurrence. Number 1350 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [announced that no objection was stated; therefore, Amendment 1 to Version H was adopted.] Number 1329 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt HB 411 for discussion purposes and "replace all of HB 411 with this work draft 23-LS1596\H [which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )"] and insert that in lieu of the original HB 411. Is there objection to that?" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that would be Amendment 2. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "I'm going to back up now." He noted that Representative Holm had withdrawn his motion. He asked Representative Seaton to move [to adopt] Version D again. Number 1313 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved [to adopt the committee substitute (CS)] for HB 411, Version 23-LS1568\D, [as a work draft]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there is no objection; [therefore, Version D was before the committee]. Number 1265 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved "to replace Version D with the 23- LS1596\H, [which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )"], which the sponsor gave us, and gut 411 and replace it." He asked if there was any objection. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the title in both versions is considerably different, and asked what effect that would have. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that "we'll have to amend the 411, by replacing both the title and the (indisc. - microphone interference) of 411 with Version -- work draft H." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "And that's how it should be framed." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that his motion was to replace all of Version D with Version H [which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )"], including its title. He asked if there was any objection. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1250 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 2 as follows: On page 1, line 10: Between "court order" and ";" Insert "including a rit of execution" [Amendment 2 was originally Amendment 1 to Version H.] CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1238 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to [page 1, line 13], which read as follows: "(4) as directed to do so by the applicant." He noted that that language was clearer in [Version D - the "House version"] and asked the sponsor, "Is that something that would be instigated by the department or by the individual?" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that part of the goal of the Senate version was to eliminate the check box and "have a default." He said, "I think it would be by letter to the department, saying, 'You can release my information to whoever.'" REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that "we're creating a bigger barrier and it needs to be just a cleaner way of doing it." He asked the sponsor to confirm that his intent is that [the release of confidential information] would have to be initiated by the applicant and not requested by the department. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with that. Notwithstanding that, he pointed out that there are lots of other sources in which to find out confidential information about a person, [such as their name and address]. Number 1133 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an example, whereby a student might be applying for a student loan for college and needed the Permanent Fund Dividend Division to send some sort of verification, so the student would direct the division to release the information. He asked if that is what the intent of the language is [paragraph (4), on page 1, line 13]. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered yes. He added that he knew there would be many other examples that he and the committee may not think of ahead of time, and [paragraph (4)] would cover those possibilities by giving the individual the power to release his/her confidential information. Representative Croft suggested that [Version H] may strike the balance between a public resource and the protection of privacy that Chair Weyhrauch had previously indicated he was seeking. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Croft to confirm that "as directed to do so by the applicant" meant for a specific purpose, not "broadly disseminated to anybody that requests from the department." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT confirmed that was so. Number 1048 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his preference for certain confidentiality language in the original [Version D, before it was subsumed by Version H]. Number 1006 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, to delete line 13 of the current Version D [which is language that was Version H], and replace it with the language with [the original Version D, which was] on page 1, line 14. [With the amendment, paragraph (4) would read: "as directed by the individual who made the confidentiality election."] CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "There's objection for that." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that [Amendment 3] would create a problem, because [paragraph (3)] "says who made the confidentiality election, and there was an election in the original version; you made an election to keep it confidential." He indicated that in the version before the committee, there is nobody who's made that election. Number 0963 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 3. Number 0957 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to language on page 1, line 11, which read "to the individual", and he suggested that should be changed to read "to an individual". Number 0923 SHARON BARTON, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue, stated that the [new Version D before the committee] would result in a zero fiscal note and would be fine, with one exception. She prefaced her explanation by saying that "as directed to do so by the applicant" may be sufficient, but she stated that the division believes that it will need the ability to give the confidential information to a banking institution if it is trying to correct a direct deposit error. She noted that every year, there are direct deposit errors, because an applicant has transposed a number or the division has keyed a number in incorrectly. In sorting that out with the bank, she explained, the division often needs a social security number and address in order to get the precise account for deposit. Number 0800 MS. BARTON suggested a possible amendment to add a paragraph that might read, "to a banking institution to correct direct deposit errors". Number 0823 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wonders if the existing proposed language giving authority to the department to release confidential information to local, state, or federal government agencies, or "as directed to do so by the applicant" doesn't already "give you the authority to write that into your disclaimer." MS. BARTON responded that that might be a possibility, but indicated that there is not much room left on the application form. Number 0760 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, said that he doesn't have an objection to Ms. Barton's suggestion for an amendment, but he just doesn't know if it is necessary to add more language to the bill. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Barton to clarify what the division needs. MS. BARTON responded as follows: Well, under "as directed to do so by the applicant", if we included a waiver ... within the direct deposit they give us, that we may have to do that, I think we would be covered legally in sharing it then. That's another option. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that the alternative to that is that "they don't get the dividend check." He indicated that the division and the applicant can work it out; therefore, he questioned why the language would be necessary in statute. MS. BARTON explained that it would take one more step out of the process; the division wouldn't have to write to the applicant to ask for a letter and then wait to get the letter back from the applicant before it can go to work with the bank to sort it out. Number 0643 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't have a problem with having another line in the bill so that there is no need to add anything to the application itself. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that, in the past, there have been directors [of the Permanent Fund Dividend Division] who have been difficult to work with. He indicated that he would support adding the necessary language if it would help. Number 0548 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that Conceptual Amendment 4 would add a [paragraph (5)], "to a financial institution for the purpose of depositing the permanent fund" or "funds", or "check". REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 4]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the check would be called. MS. BARTON replied that it is a dividend. Number 0499 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Conceptual Amendment [4]. There being none, it was adopted. Number 0492 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 411, as amended, [out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony. He clarified that the motion was to move Version D, as amended. There being no objection, CSHB 411(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|