Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/26/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB14 | |
| HB136 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 136-PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTIONS 9:08:51 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act limiting the release of certain information concerning certain public employees or officials." 9:09:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 136, Version 26-LS0574\R, Luckhaupt, 2/25/09, as a work draft. 9:09:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. 9:10:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, as chair of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 136, talked about the catalyst of the bill. He said HB 136 is a bill intended to protect officers. He related an incident when law enforcement made arrests of those in a household producing methamphetamine. After that incident, it was found that the criminals had accessed information about those law enforcement officers, such as their names and addresses, which meant that they also could access the names of the schools those officers' children attended. The proposed bill would "shade" that information in order to protect the safety of those who could be threatened by criminals obtaining such information. 9:12:21 AM DANA STROMMEN, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the only change that would be made through Version R would be the addition of subsection (d), which would remove the state recorder's office in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). She explained that Representative Ramras' office held a discussion with representatives of DNR regarding that entity's use of public records and "receiving information from entities outside of state offices," and that resulted in adding subsection (d). 9:13:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection; therefore Version R was before the committee. 9:13:45 AM MS. STROMMEN introduced the bill. She said HB 136 addresses a growing concern - not only throughout Alaska, but throughout the United States - regarding the protection of privacy and personal information. The proposed legislation would provide safety officers and government officials, as well as their loved ones, the assurance that their public records cannot be released upon request. The bill proposes that the aforementioned officers and government officials be provided the opportunity to file for confidentiality of the following information: name, address, name associated with property records, and telephone number. That information would not be released to the public if the confidentiality application [example included in the committee packet] was submitted. 9:15:03 AM CHAIR LYNN asked if that would include the voter database. MS. STROMMEN responded that the sponsor is collecting information regarding what needs to be included in the bill. Notwithstanding that, she said, "But at this point, yes, it would be anything that the state has access to not releasing information." CHAIR LYNN asked how the bill would affect his ability to communicate with "a constituent who may be in one of these categories" either during legislative business or during a campaign. MS. STROMMEN replied that the sponsor is currently discussing that issue with the Department of Law. CHAIR LYNN remarked that any member of the public can buy a copy of the voter database for Alaska. 9:16:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if a confidentiality request filled out by a legislator would preclude the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) from releasing any information from that legislator's records to the public. 9:17:07 AM JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State Legislature, said a person who voluntarily fills out the confidentiality form would have his/her home address and telephone number protected. 9:17:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he believes that HB 136 is well- intentioned, and he concurred that those in public positions need protection. However, he said he thinks the proposed legislation needs more development. He noted that elected officials are on the list, and said he may want to have them removed. He explained that the public wants to know whether or not their candidates live in their districts. CHAIR LYNN noted that in the past, having only an opponent's post office box address, he asked the Division of Elections for the opponent's street address and was denied the information. 9:19:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited language in the bill on page 1, lines 9-12, which read: If a public record, such as an assessor's database, is compiled or annotated by physical address or other identifying characteristic, then the name of a person who is eligible for confidentiality under (b) of this section and has applied for confidentiality as provided in (c) of this section, may not be disclosed. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that it would not just be the person's physical address, but also the person's name that would not be released. 9:20:43 AM MS. PIERSON clarified that the address and assessor's information would be available, but not the name associated with that information. CHAIR LYNN said it would then be possible to look at a list of property descriptions and know that those without names are properties of the people trying to maintain their confidentiality. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that through Version R, the state recorder's office would be exempted; therefore, the municipalities would be asked "to do exactly the same thing with exactly the same kind of cost that we're not willing the state to have to undergo." MS. PIERSON confirmed that the municipalities would be required to comply. She stated her belief that subsection (d) was more than just a cost issue. She explained that a huge amount of manpower would be required. She mentioned Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings - another part of law "where we would end up conflicting out." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the boroughs record taxes, and he stated his understanding that the state does not maintain the tax base. MS. PIERSON confirmed that is correct. 9:24:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed concern that if a person were to sign the confidentiality application and confidential information leaked accidentally, that person might sue the state. MS. STROMMEN indicated the need to work with the Department of Law to include language in the request for confidentiality form so that "people aren't held responsible." 9:25:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the bill, if enacted, would become effective in 90 days. He echoed Representative Wilson's concern regarding lawsuits. He said he also shares Representative Petersen's remarks regarding the importance of making information about candidates available to the public. Furthermore, he pointed out that the bill would protect the prosecution, not the defense, and he said there have been situations where people have gone after their lawyers. He said, "This is a slippery slope situation here, and I don't know how to deal with it, but I do think that there are lots of issues in this bill that require careful determination by this committee." He said he supports the intent of the bill to protect law enforcement. 9:27:18 AM MS. PIERSON noted that HB 136 is scheduled to come before the House Judiciary Standing Committee next, and she stated her belief that it would not "escape the process without a fiscal note." 9:27:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned whether the proposed legislation would work in an age of computer technology. In a matter of minutes, he said, an individual can get almost any information about any one. He said it would be expensive if someone had to develop a program for a personnel department, and it might not actually protect any one in the end. MS. PIERSON affirmed that there are companies existing today that will provide information from many sources for a price. She stated, "And I think that's part of the concern is not having the first step be through state records and public records." 9:29:15 AM MS. PIERSON, in response to Representative Gatto, said "site" addresses are not always the easiest to interpret. The use of them may or may not deter criminals. She said there is no way to totally get rid of them. In response to a comment by Chair Lynn, she acknowledged that it would be possible for her to go online to find out who lives anywhere in Fairbanks, just by accessing the assessor's database. 9:31:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she knows of a woman who left her partner because of abuse, moved away, got an unlisted telephone number, and within a day, he had found that number. She said the bill is on a good track, but needs a lot more work. CHAIR LYNN indicated a comparison between the bill and having a lock on a door: it will deter some, but not others. 9:32:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to subsection (d) and asked if the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would still be included as a public agency. MS. PIERSON characterized DMV as a "different hybrid," because the agency does not really give out a lot of public information. Notwithstanding that, she said the bill would prevent DMV from giving out personal information. CHAIR LYNN clarified that only those with the proper authority can get that type of information from DMV. 9:33:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that Representative Wilson was touching upon the need of victims for confidentiality. He indicated that there have been similar pieces of legislation in the past. He said he does not have an answer at present. 9:34:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern regarding the zero fiscal note generated by the Department of Public Safety [included in the committee packet] and the exemption created in subsection (d) of Version R. He said he would like to find out whether the exemption will create a zero fiscal note for the state agencies, and he said he would like an estimate of what the fiscal impact would be on the boroughs. He mentioned an e- mail he just received from his borough which relates that entity's concern that the proposed bill could impact 911 management as well as the geographic information system (GIS) and borough assessments. 9:36:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to see that information when it becomes available. 9:36:47 AM MS. STROMMEN, in response to a question from Representative Petersen, confirmed that other groups have been calling to ask to be included in the bill, and the sponsor will work with them to determine whether or not to add them. 9:37:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said the bill would make it more difficult, but not impossible, for the personal information of those on the list to be found by the public. He said he is sensitive to the tendency to [add on to a bill] like [decorating] a Christmas tree. He stated his interest is to cover those people who serve as Alaska's first line of defense, so that they and their families are not targeted. He expressed his desire to have a much narrower application of the bill. 9:39:30 AM MARTY McGEE, Assessor, Municipality of Anchorage, said he is convinced that "legislation is not the way to address the problem." The only way to effectively protect individuals in jeopardy is to train them to protect their own identity, he opined. The proposed legislation would create a false sense of security when there are so many ways to access information on line. He said this is a global problem, and removing a person's name from his assessment list will not provide him/her with any security. 9:42:17 AM MR. McGEE, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, said he thinks the legislature could help provide or fund training so that those targeted could protect themselves. 9:43:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he agrees with Mr. McGee's remarks about how much information is available on the Internet. He said he does not consider himself Internet savvy, but was able to find the name, address, phone number, and employment information for a friend he had not seen in over 30 years in less than 10 minutes. He said he wonders if there may be a better way to solve the problem of the vulnerability of some of the state's law enforcement officials and public defenders. 9:44:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how Mr. McGee would propose someone be trained to take his/her name off a tax roll. MR. McGEE said a person can put all his/her property into a series a trusts or corporations in order to protect his/her name. He added, "The law requires us in assessment to reflect the owner of record, so, it would automatically secure the problem, in terms of the database." In response to a remark from Representative Johnson about the cost of hiring an attorney, he noted that putting property into trusts or corporations can be done by individuals without the benefit of council. There are publications available. He relayed that the assessors offer public officials help in "establishing their state problems and other things like this," so there is no reason the assessors cannot offer those officials similar counseling regarding ownership of property and protection of identity. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that anyone can "go to state sites" to find out who is involved in trusts and corporations; therefore, he said legislation would be needed, even under the type of scenario which has been described by Mr. McGee, to protect those people with the trusts and corporations. MR. McGEE replied that he believes there is way to not have individuals' names appear. He indicated that the assessor's office views a lot of documents that are a recorded summary of trusts; the actual trust documents are not recorded. He said this is a problem encountered daily by those who work in the administration of exemption program. 9:47:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that the House Judiciary Standing Committee has had an overview regarding on line predators. Law enforcement has begun to address the issue, even though the problem is so vast. He encouraged the committee to pursue on line protection. He stated, "Requesting line officers to go get trusts and create corporations is so extraordinarily cumbersome, that in my mind [it] is not a realistic solution." He reiterated his intent to provide initial safety measures for those who serve to protect the public. 9:48:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to know how many people the bill may protect. 9:49:15 AM SHARON WEDDLETON, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Municipality of Anchorage, testified in opposition of HB 136 as currently written. She stated her belief that the intent of the bill was narrow, but the impact of the bill in its current form is broad to the point where it would be an administrative burden. Regarding the zero fiscal note, she said there would be a fiscal impact to the Municipality of Anchorage. MS. WEDDLETON shared examples of how the bill would affect the municipality. First, if a prosecuting attorney working for the Municipality of Anchorage pays the United Way his/her annual contribution via a personal check, that check includes his/her name and address. The municipality shares that information with United Way when the money is distributed, but the proposed bill would make that unlawful. Next, she indicated that [the proposed bill] would prevent the municipality from being able to administer Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reform Act (COBRA) benefits for people who have applied for confidentiality and are municipal employees. The bill would affect the administration of health insurance with a third-party administrator and the administration of health benefits with pharmacies and doctors. Furthermore, it would affect the municipality's ability to work with the State of Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which requires the municipality to constantly share the names and addresses of people who might apply for confidentiality. Moreover, the administration of the municipality's 401 K and 457 plans would be affected. MS. WEDDLETON continued offering examples of the bill's possible effects. She related that when the levy upon connection roll is presented for assembly approval, there are names and physical addresses on those rolls that would have to be "scrubbed by comparing them to the list." She pointed out that when people who would apply for confidentiality next apply to be members of public commissions, their resumes - which show their names and addresses - would be subject to public review by the assembly. Other business of the municipality that would be affected by the bill include the municipality's stop-loss program, its enforcement of liens, the collection of unpaid debts, the sending of W-2s to the IRS, and the response to lenders when a person who's replied for confidentiality applies for a mortgage. MS. WEDDLETON stated her belief that HB 136 needs to be substantially amended to bring it back within its original scope. She said the list of examples she gave is an extremely short one; it would take a few phone calls to extend it to 500 examples of how the bill, in its current form, "could change municipal practices at substantial cost." She warned that the municipality would be exposed [to lawsuits] because of inadvertent errors. She said she believes the bill is not necessary because, as Mr. McGee said, a person can put his/her home in a trust, use a post office box, get an unlisted phone number, and should be eligible to receive training on how to protect his/her confidentiality. She said concurred with the idea that privacy is an illusion. She cited as an example a check written at a grocery store, the information on which can be seen by "an unlimited number of people from that point on." Privacy cannot be ensured through the proposed legislation, she opined. 9:54:08 AM MS. WEDDLETON, in response to Representative Johnson, clarified that the municipality would not give PERS information out to just anybody who calls them. She explained that the municipality is constantly interacting with entities outside of the Municipality of Anchorage, where, for business reasons, it communicates a person's name, address, and sometimes a telephone number. She said the bill, although not its intent, would prohibit the municipality from doing that. In response to a follow-up question, she indicated that the entities with whom the municipality currently shares confidential information include health insurance companies and 401 K companies. 9:55:58 AM SCOTT JOHNSON, Public Safety Employees Association, Inc. (PSEA), said he is testifying as a lifelong Alaskan, father of three, husband, and off-duty policeman. He stated that HB 136 is important to anyone in public service who has ever arrested someone or secured them in jail for committing a crime against society. That includes, correctional officers, judges, police officers, and district attorneys, who are all at risk of retaliation. He said this is a significant problem in the Lower 48, and he fears it is only a matter of time before it becomes a problem in Alaska. He related that he is currently an 18-year veteran of Alaska law enforcement and has been a case officer for several high profile cases where sexual predators and murderers have been sentenced to a lengthy prison term, and he said he is fearful of retaliation at some point in time. MR. JOHNSON said he is currently working undercover assignments and his unit has investigated, arrested, charged, and prosecuted many serious offenders. Most of those arrests have concluded with the offender receiving significant penalties. Because of the nature of their work, Mr. Johnson said, the members of his unit go to great lengths to conceal their office location, the vehicles they drive, and - most importantly - their residential addresses. He said there are times, such as when he must testify in court, when he has to state his name, and, armed with just that name, defendants can easily search the borough property database and obtain Mr. Johnson's home location - even going so far as to printing out a map of the front door. He concurred with the bill sponsor that the intent of the bill is to shut down that one avenue of access. He added that his job takes him away from home for days at a time, which leaves his family vulnerable and unprotected. He stated that he thinks HB 136 is good for all Alaskans, because it would enhance police officers' ability to effectively perform their duties without undue concern for the safety of their families and themselves. He said he would appreciate the committee's support for HB 136. 9:59:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants to ensure that if significant burden is going to be put on municipalities that the effect will be complete, and it will not be found later that there is a more open data base that is already available. [HB 136 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HSTA - HB 14 Bill.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| 02 HSTA - HB 14 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| 03 HSTA - HB 14 News Articles.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| 04 HSTA - HB 14 Backup.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| 05 HSTA - HB 14 Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HB014-GOV-OMB-2-20-09.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HSTA - 2-20-09 HB 14 Testimony via email Fred Agree.doc |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HSTA - Amendment A.1 2-23-09 HB 14 25-LS0079-A.1.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HSTA - Amendment A.2 2-23-09 HB 14 25-LS0079-A.2.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 14 |
| HB136-DNR-SSD-02-23-09.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |
| HB136-DPS-DET-02-23-09.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |
| HSTA - CSHB 136.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |
| HSTA - HB 136 PSEA Rob Cox Testimony.pdf |
HSTA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 136 |