Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/14/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Scheduled But Not Heard
Heard & Held
Scheduled But Not Heard
Scheduled But Not Heard
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 14, 2014                                                                                            
                         1:42 p.m.                                                                                              
1:42:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze called the  House Finance Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:42 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Mia Costello                                                                                                     
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
Representative Lindsey Holmes                                                                                                   
Representative Cathy Munoz                                                                                                      
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator  Fred Dyson,  Sponsor;  Chuck  Kopp, Staff,  Senator                                                                    
Fred  Dyson;  Nancy  Meade, General  Counsel,  Alaska  Court                                                                    
System; Taylor Winston, Director,  Alaska Office of Victims'                                                                    
Rights,  Anchorage;  Forrest  Wolfe,  Staff,  Senator  Cathy                                                                    
Giessel;  Senator Cathy  Giessel,  Sponsor; Steven  Allwine,                                                                    
Alaska  Auto  Dealers  Association,  Juneau;  Amy  Erickson,                                                                    
Director,   Division  of   Motor  Vehicles,   Department  of                                                                    
Administration; Jane  Conway, Staff, Senator  Cathy Giessel;                                                                    
James  Matteucci,  Merck  Sharp  and  Dohme,  Pharmaceutical                                                                    
Research    and   Manufacturers    Association,   and    the                                                                    
Biotechnology   Industry   Organization;   William   Streur,                                                                    
Commissioner,  Department  of  Health and  Social  Services;                                                                    
Anna Latham, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson.                                                                                  
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Catherine Stone,  Director, Public Housing  Division, Alaska                                                                    
Housing Finance Corporation;  James Mooney, Self, Anchorage;                                                                    
Jamie   Rogers-Jenkins,  Self,   Two  Rivers;   Rick  Allen,                                                                    
Director, Office  of Public Advocacy, Palmer;  Deanna Smith,                                                                    
Self, Anchorage; Carmen  Gutierrez, Self, Anchorage; Quinlan                                                                    
Steiner,  Director, Public  Defender  Agency, Department  of                                                                    
Administration; Mary  Geddes, Self, Anchorage;  James Noble,                                                                    
Self, Prudhoe Bay; Melissa  Cucullu, General Manager, Alaska                                                                    
Tags  and   Titles,  Anchorage;  Aves   Thompson,  Executive                                                                    
Director,  Alaska  Trucking   Association,  Anchorage;  Jana                                                                    
Shockman, President,  Alaska Nurses  Association, Anchorage;                                                                    
Patricia Senner, Alaska Nurses Association, Anchorage.                                                                          
HB 287    APPROVE TESORO ROYALTY OIL SALE                                                                                       
          [Note:   CSHB  287(FIN)   was   reported  out   of                                                                    
          committee during the  4/14/2014 8:30 a.m. meeting.                                                                    
          The bill  was held to discuss  one new forthcoming                                                                    
          indeterminate fiscal  note from the  Department of                                                                    
          Natural  Resources   and  one   new  indeterminate                                                                    
          fiscal note  from the  Department of  Revenue. See                                                                    
          below for  detail. For additional  information see                                                                    
          4/14/2014 8:30 a.m. minutes.]                                                                                         
HB 316    WORKERS' COMPENSATION MEDICAL FEES                                                                                    
          HB  316  was  HEARD  and  HELD  in  committee  for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
CSSB 64(FIN)                                                                                                                    
          OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS/RECIDIVISM BILL                                                                             
         CSSB 64(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                              
CSSB 108(JUD)                                                                                                                   
          CONFIDENTIALITY OF CRIMINAL CASE RECORDS                                                                              
          CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and  HELD in committee for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
SB 127    VEHICLE TRANSACTION AGENTS                                                                                            
          SB  127  was  HEARD  and  HELD  in  committee  for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
CSSB 129(FIN)                                                                                                                   
          REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS                                                                                                
          CSSB 129(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                            
CSSB 169(FIN)                                                                                                                   
          IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM; VACCINE ASSESSMENTS                                                                             
          CSSB 169(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                     
          further consideration.                                                                                                
CSSB 178(FIN)                                                                                                                   
          PASSENGER & REC. VEHICLE RENTAL TAX                                                                                   
          CSSB 178(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                            
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 108(JUD)                                                                                               
     "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain                                                                         
     records of criminal cases; and providing for an                                                                            
     effective date."                                                                                                           
1:43:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR FRED  DYSON, SPONSOR, remarked that  the legislature                                                                    
infrequently dealt with civil  liberties topics. He believed                                                                    
many members  had handled Second  Amendment issues  well and                                                                    
that  First Amendment  items would  be addressed  on a  more                                                                    
frequent basis.  He relayed that  the bill pertained  to the                                                                    
Fourth,   Fifth,  Sixth,   and  Fourteenth   Amendments.  He                                                                    
discussed that in comparison to  other states Alaska had the                                                                    
most  complete CourtView  system [the  Alaska Trial  Court's                                                                    
online and  publicly accessible database]. He  detailed that                                                                    
most states  had the equivalent  of CourtView in  their city                                                                    
or county, but not statewide.  The bill would strengthen the                                                                    
privacy and  liberty interests of persons  when charges were                                                                    
dismissed or  acquitted by removing records  from CourtView.                                                                    
He  acknowledged that  some  individuals  who were  arrested                                                                    
were  guilty,   but  were   released  due   to  insufficient                                                                    
evidence. He relayed  that over 9,000 of  the 29,000 arrests                                                                    
for  misdemeanor offences  the  prior year  had resulted  in                                                                    
dismissal. He  believed there had  been around  7,000 felony                                                                    
arrests, with 1,700 dismissals.                                                                                                 
Senator Dyson  continued that under the  current system, the                                                                    
dismissed  cases remained  on CourtView  in perpetuity.  The                                                                    
CourtView  system  had  been  implemented  in  2004  and  he                                                                    
guessed  there were  approximately 60,000  people listed  in                                                                    
the database.  He noted that despite  the clear notification                                                                    
that an arrest was not a  guarantee of a person's guilt, the                                                                    
listing  of a  person's name  on  the website  made it  more                                                                    
difficult  to  obtain employment  and  to  rent a  home.  He                                                                    
stated that  the process  of removing  a person's  name from                                                                    
the  site was  structurally  defective. He  detailed that  a                                                                    
police  chief or  equivalent were  required  to approve  the                                                                    
removal  of  a  name  from the  website.  He  believed  that                                                                    
requiring the  arresting department  to remove the  name was                                                                    
counterintuitive  and exposed  the  department to  potential                                                                    
liability. He  relayed that if  the first attempt to  have a                                                                    
person's name  removed was  unsuccessful, their  next option                                                                    
was  to take  the issue  to court.  He stated  that Alaska's                                                                    
statutes were clear  that it was incumbent  upon the accused                                                                    
to prove they had been wrongly arrested.                                                                                        
1:47:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator Dyson stressed  that the practice was  contrary to a                                                                    
person's  constitutional right  to  innocence before  proven                                                                    
guilty. He believed there would  always be pragmatic reasons                                                                    
to trample  on civil and human  rights; however, legislators                                                                    
had   taken  an   oath   to   preserve  the   constitutional                                                                    
provisions.  He  opined that the default should  land on the                                                                    
side of  civil liberties  and the Bill  of Rights.  He asked                                                                    
his staff to address the bill's sectional analysis.                                                                             
Co-Chair Stoltze  noted that there had  previously been some                                                                    
public testimony  on the  subject matter in  a hearing  on a                                                                    
separate  crime bill.  The subject  matter had  subsequently                                                                    
been  removed from  the other  bill to  be dealt  with as  a                                                                    
single issue.                                                                                                                   
CHUCK  KOPP,  STAFF,  SENATOR  FRED  DYSON,  read  from  the                                                                    
sectional analysis (copy on file):                                                                                              
     Section 1                                                                                                                  
     Provides  legislative intent  directing  the Court,  to                                                                    
     the  extent  practicable,   to  treat  as  confidential                                                                    
     records  of  criminal  cases  disposed  of  before  the                                                                    
     effective date of the Act  by acquittal of all charges,                                                                    
     dismissal of all charges, or  acquittal of some charges                                                                    
     and dismissal of remaining charges,  to the same extent                                                                    
     that records are held confidential  by this bill, under                                                                    
     AS 22.35.030.                                                                                                              
     Section 2                                                                                                                  
     Amends AS 22.35 by adding  a new section, AS 22.35.030.                                                                    
     Records   concerning   criminal  cases   resulting   in                                                                    
     acquittal or dismissal confidential.                                                                                       
     This  section  establishes that  a  court  record of  a                                                                    
     criminal case is confidential if  120 days have elapsed                                                                    
     from the  date of  acquittal or  dismissal and  (1) the                                                                    
     person was acquitted of all  charges filed in the case;                                                                    
     (2) all charges against  the person have been dismissed                                                                    
     by  the prosecuting  authority; or  (3) the  person was                                                                    
     acquitted of some  of the charges in the  case, and the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed.                                                                                          
     Provide  exceptions  for  access  to  information  made                                                                    
     confidential  for  state agency  employees  responsible                                                                    
     for health,  safety, welfare, or placement  of a child,                                                                    
     a person  with a  physical or  intellectual disability,                                                                    
     or  a  person with  a  mental  illness; employees  that                                                                    
     protect other  vulnerable citizens, and  state criminal                                                                    
     justice  information network  users. The  Department of                                                                    
     Health and  Social Services  will adopt  regulations to                                                                    
     administer these exceptions.                                                                                               
     Section 3                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the  Applicability of  the Act  to criminal                                                                    
     charges  concluded on  or after  the effective  date of                                                                    
     the Act by dismissal or by acquittal of the defendant.                                                                     
     Section 4                                                                                                                  
     Establishes the  effective date of  the Act  as October                                                                    
     1, 2014.                                                                                                                   
Senator  Dyson  communicated   that  the  information  would                                                                    
remain  available to  police, the  state,  and the  national                                                                    
record; the  bill would remove  public records  of dismissed                                                                    
or acquitted cases after 120 days.                                                                                              
Co-Chair Stoltze asked  for detail about the  law related to                                                                    
the  police  chief.  Mr.  Kopp pointed  to  the  sealing  of                                                                    
criminal justice information under  AS 12.62.180. He relayed                                                                    
that   a  criminal   justice  agency   may  seal   only  the                                                                    
information   that   the    agency   was   responsible   for                                                                    
maintaining. A  person may submit  a written request  to the                                                                    
head  of   the  agency  responsible  for   maintaining  past                                                                    
conviction or  current offender information. The  two issues                                                                    
required  to  be  proven  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  were                                                                    
mistaken identity  or false accusation; the  decision of the                                                                    
agency  head was  the final  administrative decision  on the                                                                    
request. The appellant bore the  burden of proof and if they                                                                    
did not  agree with  the agency  decision their  next option                                                                    
was to  appeal to the court.  He read from the  statute that                                                                    
"a  person  about  whom information  is  sealed  under  this                                                                    
section may deny  the existence of the information  if it is                                                                    
in fact sealed."                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  asked a  question  related  to a  current                                                                    
court case  [specifics on the  case were not  provided]. Mr.                                                                    
Kopp replied  in the affirmative. Co-Chair  Stoltze surmised                                                                    
that the Municipality of Anchorage  had made the decision to                                                                    
litigate. He  stated that the  municipality had  the ability                                                                    
to correct  an action,  but chose  to litigate  instead. Mr.                                                                    
Kopp agreed.                                                                                                                    
1:54:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Neuman  referred to  a  prior  request from  the                                                                    
Office of  Public Advocacy  (OPA) to  seal files  related to                                                                    
decreasing workload.  He wondered if the  bill addressed the                                                                    
issue. Mr.  Kopp replied  that the bill  did not  pertain to                                                                    
lowering the OPA workload.                                                                                                      
Vice-Chair Neuman  clarified his interest in  the sealing of                                                                    
cases. Mr. Kopp answered that  the bill was strictly focused                                                                    
on  individuals  with  acquitted or  dismissed  charges  who                                                                    
remain on CourtView.                                                                                                            
Senator Dyson believed it would  be helpful to hear from the                                                                    
courts.  He noted  that  the court  system  was taking  some                                                                    
action on its own related to the records under discussion.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze remarked  that  many  individuals did  not                                                                    
want to  advertise their  efforts to  have a  charge removed                                                                    
from their record.                                                                                                              
1:57:00 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, relayed                                                                    
that  the court  system was  neutral  on the  bill, but  she                                                                    
appreciated  the  sponsor's  willingness to  work  with  the                                                                    
agency. She communicated that the  bill would make dismissed                                                                    
or  acquitted cases  confidential  in  electronic and  paper                                                                    
form (the  bill did not  include plea bargained  cases). The                                                                    
cases  would remain  in the  state's public  safety database                                                                    
and  would  be  accessible  to arresting  officers  and  the                                                                    
district  attorney's office.  The  legislative intent  asked                                                                    
the department  to make the change  retroactively; the court                                                                    
system could achieve the goal  without a fiscal impact note.                                                                    
She  stated that  it was  possible for  the court  system to                                                                    
take  records off  of CourtView  retroactively; it  would be                                                                    
significantly  more  burdensome  to make  archived  hardcopy                                                                    
files confidential.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  hypothetically  if  the bill  would                                                                    
remove  O.J. Simpson  case records  from  CourtView had  the                                                                    
events  surrounding  the  case occurred  in  Anchorage.  Ms.                                                                    
Meade  replied  that  the  case  would  be  covered  by  the                                                                    
legislation given  that all charges had  been acquitted; the                                                                    
criminal  case  would be  removed  from  CourtView 120  days                                                                    
after acquittal under the legislation.                                                                                          
Co-Chair Stoltze  thought extreme examples could  help frame                                                                    
an  issue.  He  mentioned  an example  related  to  a  false                                                                    
stalking accusation.                                                                                                            
Ms.  Meade  replied  that stalking  was  typically  a  civil                                                                    
protective order  and would not  be covered under  the bill.                                                                    
She noted that  the court was separately looking  at a court                                                                    
rule that would  impact civil actions where  the court found                                                                    
no probable  cause at  an initial  hearing. The  bill before                                                                    
the committee only covered criminal cases.                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze  referred  to  the  conviction  and  later                                                                    
exoneration of Mechele  Linehan and asked if  the case would                                                                    
apply under the legislation.  Ms. Meade replied that because                                                                    
the case had  not been dismissed by the  prosecutor it would                                                                    
not   be  covered   under  the   bill  and   would  not   be                                                                    
2:00:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara   asked  for  verification   that  plea                                                                    
bargained  cases  would  remain   on  CourtView.  Ms.  Meade                                                                    
replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                     
Representative  Gara asked  for verification  that the  bill                                                                    
only dismissed records for cases  when the prosecution fully                                                                    
dismissed   the  charges.   Ms.  Meade   responded  in   the                                                                    
Representative  Gara asked  for verification  that a  person                                                                    
would  end  up on  CourtView  if  they continued  to  commit                                                                    
crimes  and  were convicted  like  O.J.  Simpson. Ms.  Meade                                                                    
replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair   Stoltze   asked   for  a   description   of   the                                                                    
administrative  process.  He  asked about  a  process  under                                                                    
deliberation by  the court system.  Ms. Meade referred  to a                                                                    
proposed court  rule that was  underway. She  discussed that                                                                    
the court maintained  the Alaska Rules of  Court; there were                                                                    
committees  responsible  for  recommending changes  and  the                                                                    
Alaska  Supreme Court  was ultimately  in  charge of  making                                                                    
changes  to the  rules.  She elaborated  that currently  the                                                                    
Supreme Court was  considering (and would go  out for public                                                                    
comment) an amendment to its  existing rule about items that                                                                    
did not appear on  CourtView. She detailed an administrative                                                                    
rule designated items that could  not be on CourtView, which                                                                    
was   slightly  different   than  designating   a  case   as                                                                    
confidential. Anything  the legislature  deemed confidential                                                                    
did not appear  on CourtView including child in  need of aid                                                                    
cases,  protective proceedings  such  as guardianships,  and                                                                    
juvenile delinquency cases.                                                                                                     
Ms.  Meade  communicated   that  additional  categories  not                                                                    
posted  on  CourtView  included the  names  of  children  in                                                                    
domestic  relations cases  (these were  not confidential  in                                                                    
paper form), social security  numbers, and victim addresses.                                                                    
The court  was amending  the administrative rule  to include                                                                    
other items  it found problematic when  listed on CourtView.                                                                    
She pointed  to a  case where  a woman  was arrested  but no                                                                    
charging document  was filed;  the case  was not  covered by                                                                    
the bill, but  it would be covered by  the forthcoming court                                                                    
rule that  would remove anything  where an arrest  had taken                                                                    
place  but   no  charging  document  had   been  filed.  She                                                                    
explained that the  situations were not covered  by the rule                                                                    
because they had  not yet become a criminal  case. The court                                                                    
was  also considering  adding situations  where no  probable                                                                    
cause had been found at  an initial hearing, which sometimes                                                                    
happened   with   stalking   protective  orders   or   other                                                                    
protective order  applications. The  rule was going  out for                                                                    
public  comment  for  wide circulation  and  the  court  was                                                                    
expected to act within the next 45 days.                                                                                        
2:04:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Stoltze   asked   for   verification   that   his                                                                    
constituents who had testified in  the past would be covered                                                                    
under  the administrative  protective order,  but not  under                                                                    
the bill. Ms.  Meade referred to testimony  related to Nancy                                                                    
Means and replied in the affirmative.                                                                                           
Co-Chair  Stoltze  speculated   that  when  an  out-of-state                                                                    
settlement  was won  against the  municipality  it would  be                                                                    
sealed as  well. Ms. Meade  clarified that people  could ask                                                                    
to  have a  confidential  case made  public. She  elaborated                                                                    
that  the court  system's case  records were  not considered                                                                    
criminal  justice information.  Currently, the  only way  to                                                                    
remove  something  from  CourtView  was  through  the  court                                                                    
system. She detailed that there was  a court rule to seek to                                                                    
have cases made confidential that  otherwise were not and to                                                                    
have confidential  cases made public;  it was  the mechanism                                                                    
required to remove something from CourtView.                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze asked  if the process was  initiated by the                                                                    
person wishing  to have  their name  removed from  the site.                                                                    
Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative.                                                                                           
2:06:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CATHERINE STONE,  DIRECTOR, PUBLIC HOUSING  DIVISION, ALASKA                                                                    
HOUSING FINANCE  CORPORATION (via teleconference),  spoke in                                                                    
support  of  the  bill. She  relayed  that  the  corporation                                                                    
initially  had  concerns  about  the  bill  related  to  its                                                                    
ability to  use CourtView  to research  applicants' criminal                                                                    
records;  however, it  ultimately supported  the legislation                                                                    
due to the  way it would affect people  participating in the                                                                    
Alaska  Housing Finance  Corporation  (AHFC) Housing  Choice                                                                    
voucher program. She detailed  that the corporation provided                                                                    
approximately  4,600 vouchers  per month  to families  in 16                                                                    
locations  throughout the  state.  The  recipients passed  a                                                                    
federally required  screening process and  were subsequently                                                                    
issued a  voucher in order  to find  a landlord and  home to                                                                    
rent;  the  voucher paid  a  portion  of  the rent  and  the                                                                    
corporation   provided    the   additional    payment.   She                                                                    
communicated  that sometimes  people who  had an  old arrest                                                                    
that  had  never  resulted in  a  conviction  experienced  a                                                                    
barrier  to   renting  because  CourtView  was   used  as  a                                                                    
screening tool.  She elaborated that even  though the arrest                                                                    
had not  resulted in a  conviction, the record  on CourtView                                                                    
many  times  prevented  individuals  from  renting.  Program                                                                    
recipients were  given an  initial 60 days  to find  a unit,                                                                    
which  could  be extended  to  a  maximum  of 120  days  per                                                                    
federal  law.  She  remarked  that   it  was  a  shame  when                                                                    
qualified  individuals  were not  able  to  locate a  rental                                                                    
based  on  prior  history  or behavior  that  may  not  have                                                                    
resulted in a conviction. She  believed the bill would allow                                                                    
people who  may have made  a mistake in  the past to  have a                                                                    
better opportunity to find housing.                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Stoltze  surmised  that  it would  help  the  AHFC                                                                    
clientele to secure housing if  landlords did not know about                                                                    
prior activity.  Ms. Stone replied  in the  affirmative. She                                                                    
elaborated  that individuals  on  the sex  offender list  or                                                                    
with  violent or  drug related  convictions did  not qualify                                                                    
for the  AHFC program. Once  the individual was  approved in                                                                    
the program screening process they  should be able to find a                                                                    
home;  however,  sometimes  an  old arrest  was  used  as  a                                                                    
screening  tool  by  landlords  which  prevented  them  from                                                                    
finding a rental.                                                                                                               
2:10:05 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMES   MOONEY,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in support  of the  bill.  He spoke  about how  a                                                                    
false  sexual assault  accusation in  2009 had  impacted his                                                                    
life. He stated that his  ex-fiancé had moved from the state                                                                    
with their daughter and had  not seen his daughter since. He                                                                    
had lost his job as a  result of the experience. He had been                                                                    
acquitted,  but  had  never  been  able  to  obtain  another                                                                    
management job due to the  records on CourtView. He spoke to                                                                    
challenges  securing work.  He  stated that  he deserved  to                                                                    
have his life back, had never  hurt anyone, and had not done                                                                    
anything  wrong.  He  pleaded  with the  committee  to  help                                                                    
provide him with  a fighting chance. He  wanted his daughter                                                                    
to know he loved her.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Mr. Mooney's testimony.                                                                            
2:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMIE    ROGERS-JENKINS,     SELF,    TWO     RIVERS    (via                                                                    
teleconference), spoke  in support  of the  legislation. She                                                                    
believed the  bill represented a  civil liberties  issue and                                                                    
could not  thank the sponsor  enough for carrying  the bill.                                                                    
She  opined  that  the  bill  did not  go  far  enough.  She                                                                    
believed people used CourtView as  a screening tool for jobs                                                                    
and  housing  and that  people  did  not follow  through  to                                                                    
determine  what  had  actually  happened.  She  stated  that                                                                    
people had  a "where  there's smoke there's  fire" mentality                                                                    
that could  not be  avoided. She used  AHFC testimony  as an                                                                    
example  and  stated  that  the  testimony  had  assumed  an                                                                    
individual may  have done something  wrong in the  past, but                                                                    
had not  been convicted of  a crime. Although  she supported                                                                    
the  bill she  believed it  should include  expungement. She                                                                    
opined that the bill should include plea bargained cases.                                                                       
Ms. Rogers-Jenkins stressed that  the only cases that should                                                                    
appear  on CourtView  should  be those  that  resulted in  a                                                                    
conviction.  She  stated  that   many  people  had  pled  to                                                                    
something they  had not done  or to a lesser  charge because                                                                    
it was  closer to something that  actually happened. Reasons                                                                    
for  taking a  plea bargain  could include  fear, time,  and                                                                    
expense.  She believed  extreme examples  like O.J.  Simpson                                                                    
should be  avoided. Additionally, she felt  that restraining                                                                    
orders were  abused and should  not be listed  on CourtView.                                                                    
She spoke to a case she had  taken a plea to; she stated she                                                                    
had  not  committed   the  crime  and  there   had  been  no                                                                    
investigation.  She  believed   the  preferable  remedy  was                                                                    
adequate investigation  and no overcharging with  the intent                                                                    
to instill  fear and  gain conviction.  She would  support a                                                                    
state   funded  campaign   to  let   people   know  of   the                                                                    
occurrences.  She   stated  that  police  were   not  always                                                                    
truthful. She stated that the  Office of Victims' Rights was                                                                    
the  primary  opponent of  the  bill  and  that it  did  not                                                                    
acknowledge various abuses. She  asked the committee to pass                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
2:22:13 PM                                                                                                                    
RICK  ALLEN, DIRECTOR,  OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC ADVOCACY,  PALMER                                                                    
(via teleconference),  testified in support of  the bill. He                                                                    
addressed  an  earlier  question by  Vice-Chair  Neuman.  He                                                                    
discussed  that several  years earlier  the Public  Defender                                                                    
Agency  had  changed its  policy  related  to sealing  files                                                                    
internally; the change  had taken place in  effort to reduce                                                                    
the number  of conflicts  and the  number of  criminal cases                                                                    
that  went  to  OPA.  He  spoke  to  his  experience  as  an                                                                    
attorney. He  had seen many examples  of individuals charged                                                                    
with  theft or  robbery;  the cases  had been  appropriately                                                                    
dismissed by a  prosecutor when the defendant  had been able                                                                    
to prove their innocence. He  stated that the allegation was                                                                    
currently recorded  on CourtView indefinitely  regardless of                                                                    
a person's  innocence. He believed  there was  an unintended                                                                    
consequence where  the government was  punishing individuals                                                                    
without   having  proved   them  guilty   of  anything.   He                                                                    
understood that it  had never been the  intent of CourtView.                                                                    
He stated that  the presumption of innocence  and the burden                                                                    
of proof were important bedrocks  in the American system. He                                                                    
believed  the bill  would strike  a good  balance between  a                                                                    
person's  right  to privacy  and  liberty  and the  public's                                                                    
right to important information.                                                                                                 
2:25:26 PM                                                                                                                    
DEANNA   SMITH,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  opposition to  the  bill.  She spoke  to  her                                                                    
personal  experience. She  was currently  staying in  a safe                                                                    
house. She  stated that if  she had known about  the ability                                                                    
to  look on  CourtView it  would likely  have prevented  her                                                                    
current  situation. She  stated  that public  access to  the                                                                    
records would  provide the public  with information  about a                                                                    
person  and would  inform them  about a  possible behavioral                                                                    
pattern.  She  had  used CourtView  to  determine  that  the                                                                    
person her daughter  had begun dating had  an unlawful past.                                                                    
She implored the committee not to pass the bill.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze appreciated  Ms.  Smith's  courage in  her                                                                    
2:28:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CARMEN  GUTIERREZ,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in strong  support  of  the bill.  She  spoke to  her                                                                    
extensive work history with the  criminal justice system and                                                                    
as  former   deputy  commissioner  for  the   Department  of                                                                    
Corrections. She stated that  currently every person charged                                                                    
with an offense had a  permanent public record of the arrest                                                                    
and  charge. She  detailed that  in felony  cases there  was                                                                    
also   a   statement   of  the   alleged   factual   details                                                                    
accompanying the  charging document.  The person's  name and                                                                    
the facts  of the charge  remained public even  when charges                                                                    
were dismissed or  after a jury decided on  an acquittal. An                                                                    
arrest often became synonymous with  conviction in the minds                                                                    
of those  doing an inspection  when the arrest  continued to                                                                    
remain  public information.  She stressed  that the  records                                                                    
greatly impeded  a person's ability  to find  employment, to                                                                    
rent  an   apartment,  and   to  live   a  life   free  from                                                                    
stigmatization  for a  crime they  were never  convicted of.                                                                    
Ms.  Gutierrez relayed  that police  officers tasked  with a                                                                    
tremendous  amount  of  work  were  required  to  make  snap                                                                    
decisions when deciding  it was more likely than  not that a                                                                    
crime had  occurred. The soundness of  an officer's decision                                                                    
often depended  on the experience  of the officer  and their                                                                    
perceived  need  to  diffuse   a  difficult  situation.  She                                                                    
elaborated that  after a person  was arrested and  charged a                                                                    
prosecutor had more  time to review the merits  of the case;                                                                    
in some cases upon more  careful review and with the benefit                                                                    
of  additional  facts,  the  prosecutor  determined  that  a                                                                    
charge  did not  merit  prosecution and  that  it should  be                                                                    
dismissed.  However,  the  individual arrested  was  forever                                                                    
stigmatized by  the arrest.  She noted  that close  to 1,300                                                                    
state  felony cases  and 9,500  misdemeanor  cases had  been                                                                    
dismissed  in  FY  13.  She  communicated  that  cases  were                                                                    
dismissed  for  many  reasons,  but often  due  to  lack  of                                                                    
evidence, misidentification, no  crime committed, and other.                                                                    
She  stressed that  many people  were  arrested even  though                                                                    
they never committed a  criminal offence. The constitutional                                                                    
right  to  due  process  of  law  was  intended  to  protect                                                                    
individuals from being treated  as convicted persons without                                                                    
first  being  afforded  certain procedural  safeguards.  She                                                                    
believed it was the way it  should be. She submitted that it                                                                    
was  the  state's  responsibility  to  uphold  the  criminal                                                                    
justice system.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Gutierrez  spoke to  her prior work  as an  attorney and                                                                    
her oath to uphold the  constitution. She had concerns about                                                                    
the underlying premise of a  letter addressed from Office of                                                                    
Victims'  Rights  to the  legislature  (copy  on file).  She                                                                    
believed  that  the premise  was  that  something less  than                                                                    
innocence  should be  insinuated  each time  an Alaskan  was                                                                    
arrested  even  when the  charge  was  later dismissed.  She                                                                    
detailed that every  day judges were required  to tell every                                                                    
jury convened to hear a criminal  case that the mere fact of                                                                    
an  arrest and  charge  could not  be used  as  any kind  of                                                                    
evidence  of  guilt;   however,  CourtView  information  was                                                                    
causing  people  to  be  judged by  an  arrest.  The  system                                                                    
required criminal  conviction. She  stressed that  an arrest                                                                    
and charge should  not tarnish the reputation  of an Alaskan                                                                    
citizen.  She  thanked  the   sponsor  for  introducing  the                                                                    
2:35:04 PM                                                                                                                    
QUINLAN   STEINER,   DIRECTOR,   PUBLIC   DEFENDER   AGENCY,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF  ADMINISTRATION (via  teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
about the legal analysis  involved in charging an individual                                                                    
and  sustaining a  charge. He  mentioned the  idea that  the                                                                    
probable  cause standard  and a  grand  jury indictment  was                                                                    
sufficient to  conclude when a  person was  guilty. However,                                                                    
he stated that the probable  cause and grand jury indictment                                                                    
standard  was  only  about concluding  when  unexplained  or                                                                    
uncontradicted  items merited  going forward  on a  case. He                                                                    
stated  that an  important part  of the  legal analysis  was                                                                    
that  once an  investigation  continued,  the initial  facts                                                                    
were  explained or  contradicted in  some cases.  He relayed                                                                    
that  the  screening  process  of  probable  cause  was  not                                                                    
sufficient evidence for conviction,  but was about providing                                                                    
sufficient evidence  to move  forward on  a case.  He stated                                                                    
that "not  guilty" meant  not guilty  in the  criminal trial                                                                    
process.  He  remarked  that there  were  many  cases  where                                                                    
charges  were  dismissed  and collateral  consequences  were                                                                    
significant and life-long.                                                                                                      
2:37:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  asked  for verification  that  only  a                                                                    
prosecutor  presents  evidence  before  a  grand  jury.  Mr.                                                                    
Steiner concurred. He  added that a grand jury  was a secret                                                                    
and sealed  proceeding in which  only a  prosecutor presents                                                                    
evidence; defense attorneys were  not permitted to enter the                                                                    
2:38:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MARY GEDDES, SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference), spoke in                                                                    
support of the legislation. She  remarked on her 28 years of                                                                    
criminal law experience in Alaska.  She read from a prepared                                                                    
statement (copy on file):                                                                                                       
     Senate Bill 108, introduced  by Senator Dyson, provides                                                                    
     a simple and sensible  answer to an important question.                                                                    
     What should  happen with  the record  of a  state court                                                                    
     criminal  case when  no convictions  were obtained  and                                                                    
     the case is now closed?                                                                                                    
     Under the current  language of SB 108,  the approach is                                                                    
     straightforward.  Four  months  after such  a  case  is                                                                    
     closed,   the    court   record   is    designated   as                                                                    
     confidential.  This  means,   simply,  that  the  court                                                                    
     record  is   no  longer  offered  for   general  public                                                                    
     Many of  you have heard  the term, expungement.  In the                                                                    
     majority of states, expungement  is an available remedy                                                                    
     for   arrests   and    other   nonconviction   records.                                                                    
     Expungement  typically  means   the  destruction  of  a                                                                    
     record.  But  Alaska  does   not  have  an  expungement                                                                    
     statute.  SB 108  provides a  less drastic  remedy than                                                                    
     expungement. SB  108 would not require  the destruction                                                                    
     of court  records. Nor does it  impede or unnecessarily                                                                    
     burden law enforcement.                                                                                                    
     How often  does it happen  that a criminal  case filing                                                                    
     ends  with   a  dismissal   and  no   conviction?  More                                                                    
     frequently than  you might imagine. In  the last fiscal                                                                    
     year  alone, approximately  7,563  misdemeanor and  945                                                                    
     felony  cases  were  closed because  of  dismissals  by                                                                    
     state  prosecutors.  In   addition,  approximately  100                                                                    
     felony and  misdemeanor cases were  closed as  a result                                                                    
     of acquittals.                                                                                                             
     The  reason  for  making  nonconviction  court  records                                                                    
     confidential is  a good one.  It avoids  an unnecessary                                                                    
     risk of harm  to a person.  Even though  we all know it                                                                    
     should not  make any  difference, just  the information                                                                    
     that there once  was a criminal accusation  can limit a                                                                    
     person's  economic opportunity  and  severely damage  a                                                                    
     reputation.   Life,  subsequent   to   an  arrest,   is                                                                    
     permanently altered. Making  such records confidential,                                                                    
     by contrast,  provides a meaningful  end to  a criminal                                                                    
     Perhaps  there   is  no  better  illustration   of  the                                                                    
     personal impact of criminal  litigation for us Alaskans                                                                    
     than the  case of Senator  Ted Stevens. After  41 years                                                                    
     of  faithful service,  he was  charged with  crimes and                                                                    
     convicted.  He was  convicted. But  his conviction  was                                                                    
     later thrown  out because of  prosecutorial misconduct,                                                                    
     and his case was  entirely dismissed by the government.                                                                    
     Let's suppose for  a moment that Sen.  Stevens had been                                                                    
     charged in state  court. Even after a  dismissal of all                                                                    
     charges, public court records would  forever list him -                                                                    
     really, brand him  - as a "criminal  defendant." Why is                                                                    
     that fair? Why  should any citizen be  treated that way                                                                    
     for all time when  the government has closely evaluated                                                                    
     the evidence  and seen fit  to dismiss the  charges, or                                                                    
     when a defendant has been acquitted?                                                                                       
     Taylor  Winston, an  employee  of the  state Office  of                                                                    
     Victims'   Rights,   recently  wrote   this   Committee                                                                    
     concerning  SB 108.  Ms. Winston  opposes  the idea  of                                                                    
     making  closed nonconviction  records confidential  for                                                                    
     reasons stated in  her column on April  10, 2014. Under                                                                    
     such  a  theory  of  justice, however,  a  person  once                                                                    
     charged of  a crime  should be forever  considered "not                                                                    
     innocent,"  even  though  the  courts  lack  any  legal                                                                    
     authority  to   make  such  a   determination.  Neither                                                                    
     prosecutors acting alone  nor a grand jury  has a 'good                                                                    
     enough'   fact-finding   process    such   that   their                                                                    
     indictments should  forever stand as  public monuments.                                                                    
     Let's remember that  a grand jury meets  in secret with                                                                    
     the  prosecutor, and  that the  accused and  his lawyer                                                                    
     aren't allowed  in. Not only  did the  Founding Fathers                                                                    
     reject  the  grand jury  as  the  means of  determining                                                                    
     criminal responsibility,  they also decided  that there                                                                    
     would be  no continuing  penalty, no loss  of privilege                                                                    
     and  certainly no  lifetime loss  of privacy  for those                                                                    
     who  had  been once  charged  but  not convicted  of  a                                                                    
     Ms.  Winston argues  that the  information provided  on                                                                    
     the court's electronic  website (showing information on                                                                    
     open  and closed  criminal  cases)  is "objective"  and                                                                    
     provides  information the  public  can  use to  protect                                                                    
     itself. In  a letter she submitted  to the Legislature,                                                                    
     she provided an  example: she said she  would check the                                                                    
     website to help  make a decision on  a babysitter. This                                                                    
     is a great example as to  why SB 108 should be enacted.                                                                    
     The website  warns the reader  as to  its unreliability                                                                    
     and  prejudicial effect  and yet  people still  rely on                                                                    
     it,     presumptively,    for     divining    someone's                                                                    
     A  zealous   advocate,  Ms.  Winston   seems  genuinely                                                                    
     concerned,  but her  dire prediction  that "victims  of                                                                    
     domestic  violence, sexual  assault,  and child  sexual                                                                    
     abuse, and  our communities  will suffer" under  SB 108                                                                    
     is certainly not justified by  the very modest reach of                                                                    
     this bill.                                                                                                                 
     Senate Bill 108 would  not block any police, prosecutor                                                                    
     or  judge from  access  to  closed nonconviction  court                                                                    
     records.  Any   party  to  a  closed   case  still  has                                                                    
     automatic  access. Because  Alaska's  statutes and  its                                                                    
     constitution  now  also  require the  criminal  justice                                                                    
     system to  accommodate the rights of  crime victims, it                                                                    
     is  almost certain  that  a  complaining witness  would                                                                    
     also  have  automatic  access.   Access  by  any  other                                                                    
     individuals   can   be   obtained  with   the   written                                                                    
     permission of  the court  if the  court finds  that the                                                                    
     requestor's  interest outweighs  the potential  harm to                                                                    
     the  person or  interests  being  protected. In  making                                                                    
     this  call, the  court will  consider the  (1) risk  of                                                                    
     injury  to individuals;  (2) individual  privacy rights                                                                    
     and  interests; (3)  proprietary business  information;                                                                    
     (4)  the deliberative  process; or  (5) public  safety.                                                                    
     Finally,  it  should be  noted  that  SB 108  does  not                                                                    
     impose  any burdens  of secrecy  or non-publication  on                                                                    
     persons or companies who obtain the record.                                                                                
     Senate Bill  108 is  a neat,  nifty way  to be  fair to                                                                    
     defendants whose  cases are  entirely dismissed  - like                                                                    
     Sen.  Stevens- without  undermining law  enforcement or                                                                    
     prosecutorial functions. Let  your state representative                                                                    
     know that SB 108 should pass.                                                                                              
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  for written  testimony. Ms.  Geddes                                                                    
agreed to provide her testimony to the committee.                                                                               
2:47:02 PM                                                                                                                    
TAYLOR WINSTON,  DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF  VICTIMS' RIGHTS                                                                    
(OVR),  ANCHORAGE, testified  in  strong  opposition to  the                                                                    
legislation. She  believed the  bill was of  grave concerns,                                                                    
particularly to victims in Alaska.  In reference to previous                                                                    
testimony  she stressed  that  the bill  was  not a  "nifty"                                                                    
service to  victims of  the state.  She emphasized  that the                                                                    
victims  had  a  constitutional  right to  be  treated  with                                                                    
fairness, dignity, and respect; the  bill did not treat them                                                                    
with those things. She spoke  to her professional experience                                                                    
working in  the Alaska legal  system. She had spent  over 12                                                                    
years  working on  sexual assault  cases. She  stressed that                                                                    
the  path of  a victim  of sexual  assault was  arduous. She                                                                    
spoke about  the difficulty victims  faced when  reporting a                                                                    
crime including  feelings of guilt and  shame. She discussed                                                                    
that everyone wanted to encourage  victims to report because                                                                    
when victims reported the process  should be able to act and                                                                    
should make  communities safer. She highlighted  the bravery                                                                    
victims showed when  reporting a crime. She  stated that the                                                                    
process did not  restore a victim's sense  of well-being; it                                                                    
was  humiliating  and  constituted a  re-victimization.  She                                                                    
stated  that the  individuals had  to relive  the trauma  of                                                                    
past events in front of a  grand jury. She discussed that it                                                                    
was up to  a jury to determine whether  there was sufficient                                                                    
evidence to  prove the case  beyond a reasonable  doubt. She                                                                    
stated that an acquittal was  like a knife through the heart                                                                    
for the victim.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Winston  testified that the legislation  was contrary to                                                                    
a victim's constitutional right  to be treated with dignity,                                                                    
fairness, and  respect. She asked for  verification that the                                                                    
bill  had been  amended to  only include  dismissals by  the                                                                    
prosecution, not by the court.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  stated that there was  an affirmation, but                                                                    
he had not looked at the minutia of the bill.                                                                                   
Ms. Winston stated  that the bill put the  decision and fate                                                                    
of the  victims in the  hands of prosecutors.  She mentioned                                                                    
her former work  as a prosecutor and the  dismissal of cases                                                                    
that  occurred  for  various   reasons.  She  wondered  what                                                                    
justice the  removal of records  related to  dismissed cases                                                                    
provided  for  victims  of   various  crimes.  She  stressed                                                                    
justice for all and not  just the defendant. She believed an                                                                    
accurate account of information  and a definitive source was                                                                    
important.  She   mentioned  the  O.J.  Simpson   case;  she                                                                    
believed  it  was  important  for the  public  to  have  the                                                                    
ability to  see what  happens in  its institutions.  She was                                                                    
glad  some  of  the  supporters had  brought  forward  their                                                                    
convictions.  She stated  that certain  things would  not be                                                                    
known if the record was not open.                                                                                               
Co-Chair  Stoltze  clarified  that  supporters  had  brought                                                                    
forward their arrests, not convictions.                                                                                         
Ms. Winston  agreed and restated  that the record  was clear                                                                    
regarding   the   testifier's   arrests.  She   pointed   to                                                                    
supportive  testimony  and noted  that  the  bill would  not                                                                    
address some  specific concerns mentioned. She  spoke to the                                                                    
testimony  of  Mr. Mooney  and  stated  it  was one  of  the                                                                    
reasons transparency  of government  was important.  She had                                                                    
prosecuted the case he spoke  about. She provided details of                                                                    
the case. She stated that  the evidence against him had been                                                                    
strong, but the jury had acquitted him.                                                                                         
2:59:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Winston stressed  the importance  of the  court record.                                                                    
She  pointed to  the Mechele  Linehan case,  which had  been                                                                    
dismissed  by the  prosecution  and would  not  stay in  the                                                                    
court  record if  the bill  passed. She  mentioned the  John                                                                    
Carlin  case and  communicated that  there was  going to  be                                                                    
voiding of his conviction; OVR  had submitted that his death                                                                    
in prison did  not mean his conviction should  be voided and                                                                    
the  decision  had been  reversed  related  to the  specific                                                                    
point. She spoke  to the national George  Zimmerman case and                                                                    
believed  it deserved  to have  public scrutiny  and review.                                                                    
She opined  that prosecutors should be  scrutinized for what                                                                    
they dismissed.  She stressed that the  organization was not                                                                    
opposed  to the  concept presented  by  SB 108,  but it  was                                                                    
opposed to  the language the  bill used. She  believed there                                                                    
should be a surgical approach  because the bill would affect                                                                    
many  people. The  organization had  proposed amendments  to                                                                    
the committee to help protect victims.                                                                                          
Ms.   Winston   referred   to   an   earlier   question   by                                                                    
Representative  Gara related  to  a grand  jury and  relayed                                                                    
that   a  prosecutor   was  under   obligation  to   present                                                                    
exculpatory evidence  (any evidence that tended  to negate a                                                                    
defendant's  guilt). She  discussed  grand jury  procedures.                                                                    
She  spoke  to  the  Joshua Wade  cases  related  to  murder                                                                    
convictions.  She  mentioned  that in  cases  of  concurrent                                                                    
state and  federal jurisdiction,  the state would  dismiss a                                                                    
case to  allow it to  move through the federal  process; the                                                                    
detail would  be removed  from the  public's view  under the                                                                    
legislation.  She  did  not  believe  it  was  fair  to  the                                                                    
citizens of  the state. She  believed the bill  was contrary                                                                    
to the First Amendment, the  Freedom of Information Act, and                                                                    
the  transparency of  government.  She  reiterated that  the                                                                    
bill  was   divergent  from  the  constitutional   right  to                                                                    
fairness, dignity,  and respect. She urged  the committee to                                                                    
think about  the victims.  She referred  to statute  and the                                                                    
sealing  of the  process  and expressed  her  belief that  a                                                                    
better process  should be devised  to address  people trying                                                                    
to seal their records.                                                                                                          
3:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson noted  his  compassion for  victims                                                                    
and understood their  constitutional rights; however, people                                                                    
who were falsely accused also  had constitutional rights. He                                                                    
noted  that  under  the legislation  the  records  would  be                                                                    
removed  from CourtView  after 120  days.  He wondered  what                                                                    
timeframe Ms. Winston would be comfortable with.                                                                                
Ms. Winston  replied that there  was a difference  between a                                                                    
case where a person was  falsely accused with no evidence to                                                                    
support  the charge  and a  case where  a plea  agreement to                                                                    
dismiss  had been  agreed upon.  She noted  that a  case was                                                                    
sometimes dismissed  if a defendant  died. She  relayed that                                                                    
the 120-day time  period was not the issue.  She opined that                                                                    
CourtView had been  a problem. She did  not want individuals                                                                    
wrongfully accused of  crimes to be punished  by the system;                                                                    
however,  she  did  want  the public  record  to  remain  on                                                                    
CourtView   for   other   situations.   She   believed   the                                                                    
legislation needed to be further defined.                                                                                       
3:08:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  spoke from the perspective  of a victim                                                                    
and shared that  his father had been murdered when  he was a                                                                    
child;  however, he  would not  feel comfortable  to have  a                                                                    
person who was  wrongfully accused listed as  a criminal for                                                                    
the  rest of  their  life  even if  the  record showed  that                                                                    
charges  had  been dismissed.  He  stated  that it  was  not                                                                    
possible  to have  a  perfect system.  He  would never  feel                                                                    
comfortable having  a murder charge  listed for  an innocent                                                                    
JAMES NOBLE,  SELF, PRUDHOE BAY (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in  support of  the bill.  He stated  that charges  had been                                                                    
dismissed after he had been  falsely accused of stalking and                                                                    
domestic  violence   by  an   ex-girlfriend.  He   had  been                                                                    
surprised and  upset by  a letter  of opposition  written by                                                                    
Ms.  Winston.  After listening  to  her  prior testimony  he                                                                    
agreed with much  of what Ms. Winston had  said; however, he                                                                    
personally  related  to  her   description  of  the  various                                                                    
process of humility and shame  that victims went through. He                                                                    
stated  that  he  was  the guilty  party  according  to  Ms.                                                                    
Winston's  letter and  beliefs. He  addressed the  idea that                                                                    
predators got away  with crimes; he believed  the system was                                                                    
working hard to bring guilty  persons to justice. He relayed                                                                    
that  the   dismissed  charges  against  him   were  on  the                                                                    
CourtView  record. The  charges had  been brought  over five                                                                    
years earlier,  but they remained visible.  He stressed that                                                                    
people  looked  at  CourtView;   it  was  useful,  but  also                                                                    
harmful.  He  emphasized that  the  current  system did  not                                                                    
work.  He agreed  that  there  were a  few  cases where  the                                                                    
guilty  went free  due to  the system,  but that  the system                                                                    
would never  be perfect.  He noted  the high  case dismissal                                                                    
rate of 60  to 70 percent. He asked about  the rights to due                                                                    
process, innocence  until proven guilty, about  his right to                                                                    
privacy,  and  his right  after  proving  his innocence.  He                                                                    
reiterated his  support for the legislation  and thanked the                                                                    
3:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
CSSB 108(JUD)  was HEARD and  HELD in committee  for further                                                                    
3:15:18 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
3:17:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATE BILL NO. 127                                                                                                           
     "An Act authorizing  the commissioner of administration                                                                    
     to  enter into  agreements with  agents to  perform for                                                                    
     compensation certain transactions  related to vehicles;                                                                    
     relating to  the duties of those  agents; and providing                                                                    
     for an effective date."                                                                                                    
3:17:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Stoltze  discussed his  intent  to  hear the  bill                                                                    
presentation and public testimony.                                                                                              
FORREST WOLFE,  STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL,  discussed the                                                                    
bill. He  spoke to  long lines  and high  wait times  at the                                                                    
Division  of Motor  Vehicles (DMV).  He stated  that limited                                                                    
hours caused people to sacrifice time out of their workday.                                                                     
SENATOR CATHY  GIESSEL, SPONSOR, communicated that  the bill                                                                    
supported a strong  existing public/private partnership that                                                                    
had  been  in  place  for over  10  years.  The  partnership                                                                    
provided  available,  convenient,  and  responsive  services                                                                    
from  DMV. She  detailed  that about  10  years earlier  the                                                                    
advanced  business partnerships  began to  do contract  work                                                                    
for DMV;  contractors provided vehicle titles  and renewals,                                                                    
registration   renewals,   duplicate   registrations,   lost                                                                    
licenses, etc.  There were approximately 37  car dealerships                                                                    
and 11  private companies  providing the  service statewide.                                                                    
She  relayed  that  the  template   was  also  used  by  the                                                                    
Department of  Fish and Game  (DFG) for hunting  and fishing                                                                    
licenses;  however, DFG  allowed  its  business partners  to                                                                    
retain a  small portion of  the fee to  cover administrative                                                                    
services, whereas DMV did not.  She shared that auto dealers                                                                    
and business  partners were  presently performing  more than                                                                    
25  percent  of the  DMV  workload.  She discussed  a  graph                                                                    
showing DMV services; DMV services  were shown in orange and                                                                    
the  business partners  were shown  in yellow  (copy not  on                                                                    
file).  She  reiterated  that  the  business  partners  were                                                                    
currently  doing 25  percent of  the DMV  workload; however,                                                                    
none  of  the  costs for  facilities,  utilities,  printers,                                                                    
credit card  systems, credit card  fees, and  personnel were                                                                    
reimbursed  by DMV.  She relayed  that a  major part  of the                                                                    
contractor  services  were  conducted over  the  phone  when                                                                    
people were unable to get through to the DMV.                                                                                   
Senator  Giessel  communicated  that the  bill  would  allow                                                                    
business partners  to retain  15 percent of  the DMV  fee to                                                                    
cover  overhead  costs.  Currently  business  partners  were                                                                    
charging an  additional administrative  fee in an  effort to                                                                    
cover  costs. She  noted that  out of  convenience, citizens                                                                    
were still  choosing to utilize  the businesses  despite the                                                                    
fee. She  asked why citizens  and the private  sector should                                                                    
be  funding  a  state  agency's work.  She  added  that  DMV                                                                    
charged a  $10 administrative  fee for services  rendered in                                                                    
person.  Additionally,  DMV  collected local  taxes  for  16                                                                    
communities  around the  state including  Juneau, Anchorage,                                                                    
Kenai,  Bristol  Bay, Bethel,  and  others;  DMV retained  8                                                                    
percent of the taxes to  cover its administrative costs. The                                                                    
workload   for   private   vendors   amounted   to   336,527                                                                    
transactions annually. The fiscal  note estimated that costs                                                                    
would  be  just  under  $2 million  to  allow  the  business                                                                    
partners to retain 15 percent.  She spoke to potential costs                                                                    
that  would occur  if the  business partnerships  went away.                                                                    
She  detailed that  DMV would  be  required to  pick up  the                                                                    
transactions  that  had  previously   been  handled  by  the                                                                    
business  partners.  She  pointed  to an  estimate  that  23                                                                    
additional  state   employees  would   be  needed;   if  the                                                                    
employees were  a range  10 on the  state pay  schedule, the                                                                    
cost would  be slightly  under $2  million. She  stated that                                                                    
the fiscal note was essentially zero.                                                                                           
Senator  Giessel  relayed  that  the  calculations  did  not                                                                    
include  the additional  office  space and  the three  state                                                                    
employee managers  that would be  required to  supervise the                                                                    
new employees. She summarized that  DMV took in an 8 percent                                                                    
administrative  fee  to  cover   tax  collection  for  local                                                                    
governments and charged  a $10 fee for  services rendered in                                                                    
its office  locations. She was  compelled by  testimony that                                                                    
DMV had taken  in $48 million in surplus  revenues the prior                                                                    
year. She believed $2 million  of the figure belonged to the                                                                    
private  sector.  She stated  that  the  bill was  basically                                                                    
fiscally neutral,  provided convenient  government services,                                                                    
and  was a  small step  towards reducing  the size  of state                                                                    
3:25:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Munoz asked if  businesses had the ability to                                                                    
charge a  fee for walk-ins.  Senator Giessel replied  in the                                                                    
affirmative. She  elaborated that  the 11  private companies                                                                    
currently charged  a walk-in fee; however,  the auto dealers                                                                    
did  not.  She  added  that  the  dealers  were  considering                                                                    
dropping the service as it was costing them significantly.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze  remarked that  the  DMV  was required  by                                                                    
statute  (passed in  the  1990s) to  charge  a fee.  Senator                                                                    
Giessel agreed; AS 28.10.421 related  to the $10 service fee                                                                    
and AS 28.10.431(e) pertained to  the retention of 8 percent                                                                    
from local governments' taxes.                                                                                                  
Representative  Munoz asked  if  the  auto businesses  could                                                                    
collect  the  $10  fee.  Senator   Giessel  replied  in  the                                                                    
affirmative. She  recommended speaking  to the  auto dealers                                                                    
about  the subject  as  well. She  noted  that auto  dealers                                                                    
faced "grumbling" about additional  fees that were tacked on                                                                    
when purchasing a  car, which made them  reluctant to charge                                                                    
for the service.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze remarked  that the  business was  just the                                                                    
agent. Senator Giessel  agreed and added that  $10 would not                                                                    
cover the cost.                                                                                                                 
Representative Thompson  did not see the  comparison between                                                                    
fishing licenses and  the one at hand. He  elaborated that a                                                                    
vendor such  as Fred  Meyer did  not receive  any additional                                                                    
money above the  cost of a [fishing or  hunting] license. He                                                                    
noted that the state would refund  a portion of the fee back                                                                    
to Fred  Meyers. He  discussed that he  used the  vendors to                                                                    
avoid  standing in  line for  vehicle  license renewals.  He                                                                    
paid  the extra  fees and  believed the  vendors provided  a                                                                    
great  service; however,  the vendors  charged an  extra fee                                                                    
for convenience. He  surmised that the vendors  would not be                                                                    
providing the service  if they were not making  a profit. He                                                                    
wondered why they  should be given an  additional $2 million                                                                    
out of  state funds that  could be used for  something else.                                                                    
He  questioned why  the  vendors  should receive  additional                                                                    
money  when they  were already  charging close  to what  the                                                                    
state was  charging. He  did not  understand the  purpose of                                                                    
the bill and why it would be beneficial to the public.                                                                          
3:28:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator Giessel  replied that the  private sector  was doing                                                                    
the work of a government agency  at no cost. She stated that                                                                    
it  was  a question  of  fairness.  She expounded  that  DFG                                                                    
allowed vendors (e.g.  Fred Meyer) to keep a  portion of the                                                                    
fee to  cover personnel costs.  She stressed that  work done                                                                    
by DMV vendors was  more complex and abundant. Additionally,                                                                    
the fee charged by vendors did  not cover the work done. She                                                                    
restated that it was a question of fairness.                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson believed  the  vendors would  close                                                                    
their doors  immediately if they  were not making  a profit.                                                                    
He felt uncomfortable with the bill.                                                                                            
Representative Holmes  was concerned by the  $2 million loss                                                                    
in revenue.  She spoke  about the  various types  of vendors                                                                    
providing the  service including  auto dealers that  had the                                                                    
ability  to charge  more, groups  providing  the service  to                                                                    
members, and  vendors operating the  service as  a business.                                                                    
She wondered how  the 15 percent figure  had been determined                                                                    
in  the bill.  She  noted that  Representative Thompson  had                                                                    
relayed that  DFG provided  vendors with  5 percent  [of the                                                                    
license cost]. She wondered what other states did.                                                                              
Senator  Giessel did  not know  what other  states did.  She                                                                    
recommended asking the Alaska  Trucker's Association and the                                                                    
auto dealers. She stressed that  DMV was collecting from the                                                                    
private sector (what was analogous  to a tax) for doing work                                                                    
for  DMV. The  cost  was  being passed  on  by  some of  the                                                                    
businesses as  a user  fee to citizens.  She stated  that it                                                                    
was  truly a  question  of fairness  and  of being  consumer                                                                    
friendly  to  Alaska's  citizens.  She  questioned  how  the                                                                    
agency was  able to bring  in a  surplus of $48  million and                                                                    
stated that  part of  the reason was  because 25  percent of                                                                    
its workload was being done by citizens.                                                                                        
3:33:13 PM                                                                                                                    
MELISSA CUCULLU, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA TAGS AND TITLES,                                                                       
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the                                                                     
legislation. She read from a prepared statement:                                                                                
     The   private  sector   provides   the  staffing,   the                                                                    
     facilities,  required technology,  and office  supplies                                                                    
     to  process the  transactions that  create millions  in                                                                    
     revenue  for  the  State of  Alaska.  This  legislation                                                                    
     allows  Alaskan  owned  businesses to  hire  additional                                                                    
     employees,  open   new  facilities,   provide  extended                                                                    
     hours, and  create more options for  Alaskan residents.                                                                    
     Senate  Bill 127  is about  fairness and  is a  win for                                                                    
     Alaskan residents, a win for  the private sector, and a                                                                    
     win  for  the  state government  by  reducing  overhead                                                                    
     costs while still generating income.  I'd like to thank                                                                    
     you  for your  time  and consideration  of Senate  Bill                                                                    
3:34:19 PM                                                                                                                    
AVES   THOMPSON,   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,   ALASKA   TRUCKING                                                                    
ASSOCIATION (ATA), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in                                                                     
favor of the bill. He read from a prepared statement:                                                                           
     ATA was approached in late  December 2006 to see if the                                                                    
     association was  interested in becoming a  DMV business                                                                    
     partner and as  we evaluated the proposal  the ATA felt                                                                    
     that  this  could be  a  good  member benefit  for  our                                                                    
     trucking  members to  facilitate  the  handling of  our                                                                    
     members' DMV  transactions. Our members  have benefited                                                                    
     from  our partnership  as has  the general  public that                                                                    
     walks  into   our  office  each  and   every  day.  Our                                                                    
     customers are  about half commercial  vehicle operators                                                                    
     and half  are walk-in  personal vehicle  operators. Our                                                                    
     association member  companies enjoy the  prompt service                                                                    
     that  we can  give them.  Our walk-in  customers are  a                                                                    
     cross section of the  Anchorage population. Our service                                                                    
     is   generally   prompt,  friendly,   supportive,   and                                                                    
     helpful. Our  customers appreciate the extra  effort we                                                                    
     put into these transactions  to make the DMV experience                                                                    
     a little more user friendly.                                                                                               
     In order for  the ATA to better serve  its customers we                                                                    
     feel that  a modest 15  percent commission on  the work                                                                    
     done for the state DMV is  a small price to pay for the                                                                    
     work  that is  currently being  done by  these business                                                                    
     partners. Every  workday since  2006 we  have processed                                                                    
     transactions   for  the   State  of   Alaska  with   no                                                                    
     compensation other  than the  nominal service  fee that                                                                    
     we  charge our  customers. DMV  provides some  supplies                                                                    
     such  as title  and  registration forms,  tags for  the                                                                    
     license plates,  and the license plates  themselves. It                                                                    
     has  been   our  business  partner   responsibility  to                                                                    
     provide and pay for  personnel, reception space, secure                                                                    
     office  space, dedicated  computer systems  and related                                                                    
     technical support, copiers,  paper, postage, and credit                                                                    
     card  fees.  In  2013  we processed  more  than  11,000                                                                    
     transactions  for the  State  of  Alaska and  generated                                                                    
     revenue of  more than  $1.6 million  in fees  and local                                                                    
     taxes.  The  local taxes  as  you've  heard are  passed                                                                    
     through DMV  to the local  governments. So not  only do                                                                    
     we generate revenue  for the State of Alaska,  we are a                                                                    
     tax collector  for local governments.  Our calculations                                                                    
     indicate  that  of the  $1.6  million,  we generated  a                                                                    
     total  of more  than $1.1  million in  fee revenue  for                                                                    
     The changes  made in the committee  substitute in House                                                                    
     State  Affairs allows  the DMV  to honor  these current                                                                    
     agreements during the time it  takes for the department                                                                    
     to  promulgate  and   adopt  regulations  covering  the                                                                    
     agreement prerequisites  and provisions set out  in the                                                                    
     statute. It will  allow the department to  begin the 15                                                                    
     percent retained  commissions at the effective  date of                                                                    
     the  bill.  The bill  language  is  clear in  that  all                                                                    
     proceeds  with the  exception  of  municipal taxes  are                                                                    
     eligible for  the 15  percent retained  commissions and                                                                    
     these  changes also  provide  the  15 percent  retained                                                                    
     commission rather  than the sliding scale  from zero to                                                                    
     15 percent.  We believe that the  business partners are                                                                    
     providing  a  valuable  service  that  supplements  DMV                                                                    
     capabilities without increasing  DMV's operating costs.                                                                    
     We  also  believe that  as  a  matter of  fairness  DMV                                                                    
     business  partners   should  be  compensated   for  the                                                                    
     service that they provide for  the state. It boils down                                                                    
     to sharing the revenue  with the partners that generate                                                                    
     the  revenue. Business  partners have  become a  way of                                                                    
     delivering DMV services and the  partners need to share                                                                    
     in  the revenue  for the  work  that is  being done  to                                                                    
     enable the partners to grow  their business and improve                                                                    
     service to  our fellow citizens. We  urge the committee                                                                    
     to look favorably on Senate Bill 127.                                                                                      
3:38:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg asked  what  the current  service                                                                    
fee  was.   Mr.  Thompson  replied  that   transaction  fees                                                                    
involving a  title were  $15 and fees  for other  items were                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg asked  for verification  that the                                                                    
cost exceeded the  cost of a title. Mr.  Thompson replied in                                                                    
the  affirmative.  Representative Guttenberg  remarked  that                                                                    
the Alaska Trucking Association  had conducted 11,000 of the                                                                    
Mr.  Thompson replied  that  the  association collected  the                                                                    
registration  fees  and the  local  taxes  according to  the                                                                    
schedule  provided  by  DMV. The  association  remitted  the                                                                    
money to the  DMV on the following business day  to the DMV.                                                                    
He  reiterated  that  the association's  service  fees  were                                                                    
between $12 and $15.                                                                                                            
Representative  Thompson   asked  how  many   locations  the                                                                    
business   operated.   Mr.   Thompson  answered   that   the                                                                    
association operated one location in Anchorage.                                                                                 
Representative  Thompson  asked  for verification  that  the                                                                    
business  was not  losing money.  Mr. Thompson  replied that                                                                    
the business  was not losing  money given that it  owned its                                                                    
facility.  He  relayed that  the  association  made a  small                                                                    
amount  on the  services  annually, but  it  was hoping  for                                                                    
increased  revenues  to  add  additional  staff  and  expand                                                                    
business hours.                                                                                                                 
Representative  Thompson asked  if there  was a  maximum fee                                                                    
the business  could charge above  state costs.  Mr. Thompson                                                                    
replied in the negative.                                                                                                        
Representative Wilson asked  if any of the  savings would be                                                                    
passed  on to  the people  of Alaska.  Mr. Thompson  replied                                                                    
that fees would not be increased.                                                                                               
Representative Wilson  asked how  much additional  money the                                                                    
association would  receive if the bill  passed. Mr. Thompson                                                                    
replied  that  in  2013  the  association  had  turned  over                                                                    
slightly over  $1 million  to DMV; 15  percent of  the total                                                                    
equaled approximately $150,000.                                                                                                 
3:42:49 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVEN  ALLWINE, ALASKA  AUTO  DEALERS ASSOCIATION,  JUNEAU,                                                                    
spoke in  support of the  legislation. He  communicated that                                                                    
for  over  a decade  a  number  of  auto dealers  in  Alaska                                                                    
provided licensing for  customer's vehicles. The association                                                                    
had taken  on the responsibility  to ease the load  for DMV.                                                                    
He  detailed   that  the  association   had  taken   on  the                                                                    
responsibility  because the  titling  had  not been  getting                                                                    
done  promptly. He  furthered that  a number  of dealers  in                                                                    
Alaska provided the service  free-of-charge. The dealers had                                                                    
absorbed  the  associated  costs (e.g.  paper,  credit  card                                                                    
fees, computers,  and other).  He was  no longer  willing to                                                                    
provide   the  service   without  a   fee  because   of  its                                                                    
cumbersome, expensive,  and complicated nature.  He stressed                                                                    
that making a  mistake on DMV related  services had negative                                                                    
consequences. He  pointed to items  such as mileage  and VIN                                                                    
numbers and  explained that the  work was an  exact science;                                                                    
therefore,  it  was necessary  to  have  employees who  were                                                                    
qualified  and proficient  at  the work.  He  added that  in                                                                    
larger  stores the  work required  a full-time  position. He                                                                    
explained that  the dealerships had never  charged customers                                                                    
for  the  service  beyond  the license  fee;  the  cost  was                                                                    
absorbed as  a cost of  doing business. He relayed  that the                                                                    
bill would  provide some income  to offset a portion  of the                                                                    
expense.  He would  consider hiring  an employee  to provide                                                                    
the  service  within  his  store  if  the  bill  passed.  He                                                                    
believed the tool could be wonderful  for DMV if it was used                                                                    
in  locations with  high demand  for services.  He discussed                                                                    
that DMV  services in Washington State  were either provided                                                                    
online or  by a  non-governmental agency. He  reiterated his                                                                    
support for the legislation.                                                                                                    
3:46:26 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara asked for  verification that the service                                                                    
to  customers was  voluntary. Mr.  Allwine  answered in  the                                                                    
Representative Gara  surmised that dealerships were  able to                                                                    
pass on any  absorbed costs to consumers. He  referred to an                                                                    
Alaska dealer  price markup. He asked  for verification that                                                                    
the  big  three  American  auto  manufacturers  charged  all                                                                    
dealers the price for a vehicle regardless of the state.                                                                        
Mr. Allwine replied that auto  manufacturers charged all car                                                                    
dealers  the same  price. He  relayed that  there were  some                                                                    
slight  differences   in  destination  charges   for  import                                                                    
models. He stressed  that the freight charge  for a Chrysler                                                                    
was  the  same  anywhere  in the  United  States  (including                                                                    
Alaska).  He  communicated that  a  dealer  could choose  to                                                                    
charge  more  for a  vehicle;  however,  he and  many  other                                                                    
association members did not conduct business that way.                                                                          
3:48:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg used the purchase  of a new car as                                                                    
an example  and asked  why providing a  vehicle registration                                                                    
required  anything beyond  the  standard use  of a  warranty                                                                    
clerk and  financing officer. He observed  that accuracy was                                                                    
critical for basic services associated  with the purchase of                                                                    
a car.                                                                                                                          
Mr.  Allwine answered  that the  fields  were unrelated.  He                                                                    
explained  that  the  finance   officer  was  essentially  a                                                                    
banker,  responsible  for  handling  all  of  the  financial                                                                    
paperwork after an automotive  transaction was completed. He                                                                    
detailed that the finance  officer was primarily responsible                                                                    
for the  completion of all  legal documents  (e.g. financing                                                                    
contracts,  trade-in   documents,  payoffs,  or   other).  A                                                                    
warranty clerk  had nothing  to do  with the  sale of  a new                                                                    
vehicle.  The  clerk was  involved  with  the processing  of                                                                    
warranty  repairs  and  for bringing  in  payment  (like  an                                                                    
insurance clerk in a doctor's  office). The business finance                                                                    
officer provided the  initial paperwork for DMV.  He did not                                                                    
participate in  DMV's program; therefore, the  paperwork was                                                                    
delivered  to  DMV every  three  days.  The titling  of  the                                                                    
vehicle was specialized and was done by DMV.                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg  pointed out that the  finance and                                                                    
warranty  employees handled  difficult  work where  accuracy                                                                    
was  required. He  had used  a vendor  to renew  his vehicle                                                                    
registration  and had  been amazed  at the  quick turnaround                                                                    
time. He did not believe  the difficulty or technical aspect                                                                    
of the work was problematic.                                                                                                    
Mr.  Allwine   noted  that  Representative   Guttenberg  was                                                                    
referring  to  the renewal  a  currently  owned vehicle.  He                                                                    
agreed that  the transaction was  relatively simple  and did                                                                    
not  include a  transfer of  ownership, verification  of VIN                                                                    
numbers, or other. He  was specifically discussing paperwork                                                                    
related to  new vehicles including the  VIN, proper titling,                                                                    
and  other   items.  For  used  out-of-state   vehicles  the                                                                    
dealership had  to do extensive  paperwork to create  an in-                                                                    
state   title.    Additionally,   paperwork    became   more                                                                    
complicated when  a transaction  involved two  lien holders.                                                                    
He provided other examples of  various paperwork required in                                                                    
different transactions.                                                                                                         
Representative  Guttenberg   remarked  that  he   had  three                                                                    
dealerships in  his family. He  shared that he  received all                                                                    
of the paperwork when he made a transaction.                                                                                    
3:52:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Munoz  wondered   if  the  dealership  could                                                                    
charge  a $10  fee  for providing  DMV  related services  in                                                                    
person (similar  to the  $10 fee charged  for in  person DMV                                                                    
services). Mr. Allwine replied in the negative.                                                                                 
Representative Munoz wondered if  the 15 percent would cover                                                                    
employee  costs.   Mr.  Allwine  believed  the   number  was                                                                    
reasonable and fair.                                                                                                            
Vice-Chair  Neuman referred  to  language in  the bill  that                                                                    
would  require  a  new  business to  wait  one  year  before                                                                    
entering into a vendor  agreement with the department [DMV].                                                                    
He  wondered if  the  provision created  an unfair  business                                                                    
Mr.  Allwine  did  not  believe  so.  He  commented  on  the                                                                    
importance  of  discretion and  ensuring  a  business had  a                                                                    
positive track  record. He  thought that  at least  one year                                                                    
was a good idea.                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Neuman  remarked on the State  of Alaska offering                                                                    
an  advantage  to  one company  over  another.  Mr.  Allwine                                                                    
opined that discretion  was required. He did  not believe it                                                                    
was  a  question  of  fairness.  He  noted  that  too  often                                                                    
businesses "set up shop and  leave." He believed caution was                                                                    
not necessarily a bad thing.                                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson expressed  confusion on  the issue.                                                                    
He  had been  in two  business locations  where registration                                                                    
renewals  were the  sole service.  The one-year  requirement                                                                    
shut  out  others  from  entering   into  the  business.  He                                                                    
compared it to telling a  business they could have a license                                                                    
to sell  cars, but limiting  them to selling only  Fords. He                                                                    
stressed that  the provision restricted a  person from going                                                                    
into  business.   He  believed  it  constituted   an  unfair                                                                    
business practice.                                                                                                              
Mr. Allwine  deferred the question  to the bill  sponsor. He                                                                    
felt that the issue was outside his purview.                                                                                    
3:56:42 PM                                                                                                                    
AMY   ERICKSON,  DIRECTOR,   DIVISION  OF   MOTOR  VEHICLES,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF  ADMINISTRATION, shared that the  DMV had been                                                                    
in partnerships  with businesses  since early 2000.  The DMV                                                                    
provided   all  supplies   businesses   needed  to   conduct                                                                    
registrations,  title  transactions, license  plates,  tabs,                                                                    
forms,  motorcycle manuals,  and  placards  free of  charge.                                                                    
Additionally, the  DMV trained  business partners on  how to                                                                    
conduct  transactions  and  provided   free  access  to  its                                                                    
database. She communicated that  while the business partners                                                                    
accounted  for  26  percent of  DMV's  revenues,  DMV  still                                                                    
touched   each  transaction   conducted  by   the  partners.                                                                    
Information gathered  by the partners  was sent to  DMV each                                                                    
night  for reconciliation  to ensure  all documentation  and                                                                    
auditing  was  done  and that  transactions  were  completed                                                                    
Representative  Thompson wondered  if  there was  a set  fee                                                                    
that a  vendor could charge above  the cost of a  renewal or                                                                    
title  change. Ms.  Erickson replied  that the  DMV did  not                                                                    
regulate any fees  charged by partners. She  added that auto                                                                    
dealerships could  charge a  fee, but  did not  currently do                                                                    
Representative  Thompson  asked   for  verification  that  a                                                                    
dealership could charge a fee.  Ms. Erickson answered in the                                                                    
Representative   Thompson  was   troubled   by  the   bill's                                                                    
requirement  that  a  business   could  not  enter  into  an                                                                    
agreement  with  the  department  until  they  had  been  in                                                                    
business for  a minimum of  one year. He noted  that vendors                                                                    
were  required  to  receive  training   from  DMV  prior  to                                                                    
offering  the  services.  He  thought  the  requirement  was                                                                    
unfair and would shut out  any new vendors from entering the                                                                    
Ms.  Erickson  could  not  speak  to  the  sponsor's  intent                                                                    
related to the bill provision.                                                                                                  
Representative Costello asked if  the department or division                                                                    
had  a position  on the  bill. Ms.  Erickson replied  in the                                                                    
Co-Chair  Austerman asked  if the  division agreed  with the                                                                    
$1.9 million  fiscal note. Ms.  Erickson agreed  that paying                                                                    
15 percent to  business partners would mean  [a reduction in                                                                    
revenue to the division] in  the amount listed on the fiscal                                                                    
Co-Chair  Austerman   wondered  how  valuable   the  service                                                                    
provided  by  vendors  was to  the  division.  Ms.  Erickson                                                                    
replied  that she  could  not quantify  the  service with  a                                                                    
number, but  it was  a great service  to customers  and kept                                                                    
the lines at DMV locations shorter.                                                                                             
Representative   Munoz  asked   about  the   annual  surplus                                                                    
generated by  the division. Ms.  Erickson answered  that the                                                                    
division  collected approximately  $70  million in  revenue;                                                                    
its own budget was approximately $17 million.                                                                                   
Representative  Munoz  asked  if the  excess  revenues  were                                                                    
deposited  into the  general fund.  Ms. Erickson  replied in                                                                    
the  affirmative.  Representative   Munoz  surmised  that  a                                                                    
reduction of $2  million would not impact  DMV. Ms. Erickson                                                                    
hoped that  the loss  would not impact  DMV. She  noted that                                                                    
the funds were deposited into the state general fund.                                                                           
Representative  Wilson  asked if  the  DMV  could choose  to                                                                    
discontinue partnership with vendors  to prevent the loss of                                                                    
revenue. Ms.  Erickson replied in  the affirmative.  The DMV                                                                    
could choose to end a contract within 30 days.                                                                                  
Representative Wilson  asked if  DMV was forcing  vendors to                                                                    
do  the work.  Ms.  Erickson answered  that dealerships  had                                                                    
opted into  the program to  provide a service  to customers.                                                                    
She detailed that many dealerships  did not participate. The                                                                    
division  had  a  specific dealer  unit  in  Anchorage  that                                                                    
processed paperwork dropped off by vendors.                                                                                     
Representative Wilson  asked if  dealerships could  charge a                                                                    
fee to customers.                                                                                                               
4:03:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Erickson  replied  that there  was  nothing  preventing                                                                    
dealerships from charging a fee.                                                                                                
Senator  Giessel addressed  the bill's  one-year requirement                                                                    
for  business  partners.  She  stated  that  there  were  11                                                                    
private business partners and  37 auto dealers providing the                                                                    
services. Many of  the companies provided more  than one DMV                                                                    
service.  She  agreed  that  DMV  trained  business  partner                                                                    
employees  funded by  the  business  partners. She  stressed                                                                    
that  the primary  emphasis of  the bill  was fairness.  She                                                                    
stated that  the companies were  conducting over  25 percent                                                                    
of  DMV's  work  and  were receiving  no  compensation.  She                                                                    
believed it was another form  of tax. The bill's purpose was                                                                    
to support  the private sector and  the convenience provided                                                                    
to the state's citizens.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Austerman CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                     
SB  127  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 169(FIN)                                                                                               
     "An Act  establishing in the  Department of  Health and                                                                    
     Social  Services a  statewide immunization  program and                                                                    
     the  State  Vaccine   Assessment  Council;  creating  a                                                                    
     vaccine   assessment  account;   requiring  a   vaccine                                                                    
     assessment from  assessable entities and  other program                                                                    
     participants  for   statewide  immunization  purchases;                                                                    
     repealing  the temporary  child and  adult immunization                                                                    
     program; and providing for an effective date."                                                                             
4:05:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR CATHY  GIESSEL, SPONSOR, addressed  the legislation.                                                                    
She spoke as  a proponent of the private  sector. She stated                                                                    
that  the bill  represented  a  public/private solution  for                                                                    
expensive and preventable health  issues seen in Alaska. She                                                                    
shared  that a  few years  earlier, federal  funds had  been                                                                    
provided for  a universal  vaccine program that  had existed                                                                    
for  40  years.  She  relayed that  a  former  Alaskan  U.S.                                                                    
Senator [Senator  Ted Stevens]  had made sure  health issues                                                                    
were  addressed  the  state. The  state  had  received  $4.3                                                                    
million annually until 2010 to  cover vaccines; however, the                                                                    
number  had  fallen  to   approximately  $700,000.  She  had                                                                    
sponsored  legislation two  years ago  using state  money to                                                                    
restore the funding. She explained  that the bill's activity                                                                    
was set  to last  three years. She  noted that  other states                                                                    
were  finding  a   public/private  partnership  solution  to                                                                    
funding universal  vaccines. The three-year  period provided                                                                    
the Department of Health and  Social Services (DHSS) time to                                                                    
formulate a solution.  She stated that the  current bill was                                                                    
the solution. The bill would  adopt a vaccine council (pages                                                                    
2 and  3 of the  legislation) and outlined that  the council                                                                    
would  be comprised  of State  of  Alaska insurers,  private                                                                    
providers,   a   tribal   entity,   and   other   healthcare                                                                    
participants.   Participation  in   the  program   would  be                                                                    
optional; it would provide insurers  with the option to pool                                                                    
funding with  the state to  purchase vaccines at  the lowest                                                                    
possible price. She noted that  the state had the ability to                                                                    
purchase vaccines  at the lowest  price through  the Centers                                                                    
for Disease Control as well as state buying pools.                                                                              
Senator Giessel  explained that the  bill she  had sponsored                                                                    
in the past only provided  a limited number of vaccines. She                                                                    
expounded  that uninsured  healthcare providers  had to  buy                                                                    
small quantities  of the vaccine  themselves because  of the                                                                    
short-term shelf life. She emphasized  that money was wasted                                                                    
when   vaccines  expired.   Many   clinics   had  opted   to                                                                    
discontinue providing  vaccines because  of the  expense and                                                                    
risk  of expiration.  The large  purchasing option  had been                                                                    
used  under Senator  Steven's funding  for  many years.  She                                                                    
detailed  that vaccines  were  stored in  a  depot and  were                                                                    
distributed to  healthcare providers across the  state based                                                                    
on the providers' request. She  noted that the providers had                                                                    
an  idea   how  many  vaccines  their   clinic  would  need;                                                                    
therefore, they  did not run  the risk of  vaccines expiring                                                                    
or being  incorrectly stored. The plan  would allow insurers                                                                    
to buy in  to the program; insurers would  be assessed based                                                                    
on the number  of insured individuals and  what the expected                                                                    
vaccine  need  would  be.  Insurers  would  likely  pay  the                                                                    
assessment  upfront   and  the  state  would   purchase  the                                                                    
vaccine.  She  explained  that  there  were  many  ways  the                                                                    
process could work,  which would be determined  in the first                                                                    
year after the  bill passage. She furthered  that DHSS would                                                                    
work with the  council to formulate the  plan going forward.                                                                    
She  emphasized  that  the  council   was  not  a  board  or                                                                    
commission;  it would  operate under  DHSS at  no additional                                                                    
Senator  Giessel  continued  that   the  program  would  use                                                                    
volunteers and would  not have travel or  per diem expenses.                                                                    
She  pointed to  a  bubble chart  titled  "SB 169  Statewide                                                                    
Immunization Program"  in members'  packets (copy  on file).                                                                    
The legislation  had received letters  of support  from over                                                                    
30  healthcare   providers,  clinics,  and   senior  centers                                                                    
statewide.  She stressed  that  seniors  were interested  in                                                                    
various vaccines  including shingles,  pneumonia, influenza,                                                                    
diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Stoltze remarked  that  the  interest was  evident                                                                    
based  on  the  number  of  health  fairs  and  immunization                                                                    
clinics held in senior centers.                                                                                                 
Senator  Giessel  agreed.  She   referred  to  a  letter  in                                                                    
members' packets  from a New Hampshire  pediatrician serving                                                                    
on  the state's  vaccine  association;  the association  had                                                                    
documented $45  million in savings  over the past  11 years.                                                                    
She noted that  nine other states had  similar programs. She                                                                    
reiterated  that  seniors  would  also have  access  to  the                                                                    
vaccines. She  noted that the bill  had undergone amendments                                                                    
in the House Health and Social Services Committee.                                                                              
JANE  CONWAY, STAFF,  SENATOR CATHY  GIESSEL,  spoke to  the                                                                    
changes  made  in  the  House  Health  and  Social  Services                                                                    
Committee  (bill  version  B). The  following  language  was                                                                    
added on page 2, line 3:                                                                                                        
     (1) establish a procedure to phase in the program over                                                                     
     a three-year period that provides for participation by                                                                     
     an assessable entity;                                                                                                      
Ms. Conway  pointed to  page 2, line  28 where  the language                                                                    
"or the chief  medical officer's designee" was  added to the                                                                    
council membership.  Page 2,  line 29  required that  one of                                                                    
the two  licensed healthcare providers on  the council would                                                                    
be a pediatrician. Page 3,  line 31 added the legislature as                                                                    
a recipient  of the council's annual  financial report. Page                                                                    
4,  lines 13  through  14 added  the  language "after  being                                                                    
phased  into the  program under  procedures approved  by the                                                                    
commissioner." Page  5, lines  4 and  5 added  the following                                                                    
     (e) An assessable entity may opt out of the program                                                                        
     during the three-year phase-in period under procedures                                                                     
     approved by the commissioner.                                                                                              
Ms.  Conway elaborated  that  the model  was  used to  allow                                                                    
providers to  choose whether  to opt  into the  program. She                                                                    
detailed  that a  timeframe would  be designated  similar to                                                                    
the  open  enrollment  system   used  for  state  healthcare                                                                    
4:15:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Conway continued to discuss  changes in the legislation.                                                                    
Page 5, lines 9 through 12 added the following provisions:                                                                      
     (b) An assessable entity may not deny a claim for                                                                          
     coverage by a health care provider of vaccines not                                                                         
     distributed under the program.                                                                                             
     (c) A health care provider may not bill a payor for or                                                                     
     resell a vaccine distributed under the program.                                                                            
She elaborated  that a provider  not in the program  may not                                                                    
deny a claim. She  explained that healthcare providers would                                                                    
be required  to ensure that  the program vaccines  were kept                                                                    
separately from others.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  if the  mandate related  to vaccine                                                                    
coverage  was new.  Ms. Conway  replied that  it had  always                                                                    
been  the case  that state  vaccines could  not be  given to                                                                    
another person or resold.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Stoltze clarified  that he  was interested  in the                                                                    
coverage   mandate.  Senator   Giessel  replied   that  some                                                                    
insurance policies  had provided  coverage for  vaccines and                                                                    
had been  doing so  for some  time. The  provision prevented                                                                    
double assessment. She explained that  if an entity had paid                                                                    
for  the  vaccines  upfront  through  the  state  purchasing                                                                    
program, they would  not be billed by the  provider a second                                                                    
time for giving the vaccine.                                                                                                    
Ms. Conway moved  to page 7, lines 2 through  5; the section                                                                    
would repeal  statutes pertaining  to the  adult vaccination                                                                    
program on  January 1, 2021.  The provision  necessitated an                                                                    
act  by the  legislature  (prior to  2021)  to continue  the                                                                    
adult portion of the immunization  program set out under the                                                                    
legislation.  Page  7,  line  6  repealed  Chapter  24,  the                                                                    
current temporary  program; the funds would  be deposited to                                                                    
begin  the  vaccine  assessment account.  Page  7,  line  13                                                                    
changed the  bill's effective date  to January 1,  2015. She                                                                    
added  that  throughout  the   bill  the  term  "recommended                                                                    
vaccine"  had   been  changed   to  "included   vaccine"  in                                                                    
reference  to the  list of  vaccine  selections the  council                                                                    
would compile.                                                                                                                  
Representative  Munoz  asked  the  sponsor  to  address  any                                                                    
resistance  to  including  adults in  the  vaccine  program.                                                                    
Senator Giessel  answered that she  had been  surprised that                                                                    
the Pharmaceutical  Manufacturer's Association had  come out                                                                    
in  opposition  to the  bill.  She  pointed to  its  initial                                                                    
opposition  to  including  adults  in the  program  and  its                                                                    
subsequent  opposition  to the  bill  in  its entirety.  She                                                                    
deferred  the  question  to   the  association  for  further                                                                    
detail.  She  was  concerned  that   many  of  the  diseases                                                                    
affecting  children  such  as   pertussis  were  carried  by                                                                    
adults. She detailed that pertussis  manifested in adults as                                                                    
a  severe  cough, but  could  be  deadly for  children.  She                                                                    
pointed  to  multiple cases  in  Ohio  the prior  year  when                                                                    
newborns  had  died  after   contracting  the  illness  from                                                                    
adults.  She  stressed  the importance  of  making  vaccines                                                                    
available to adults in addition  to children. She added that                                                                    
seniors  were  supportive of  the  bill  and were  glad  the                                                                    
shingles vaccine  would be available  to them.  She believed                                                                    
including seniors in the program was critically important.                                                                      
Representative  Munoz wondered  what  the legislation  would                                                                    
take away.  She was  interested in the  cost benefit  of the                                                                    
program, its  impacts, and why  there was opposition  to the                                                                    
Senator  Giessel answered  that  currently  there were  many                                                                    
healthcare providers  who were  no longer  offering vaccines                                                                    
due to  the financial expense. She  elaborated that vaccines                                                                    
bought   in  small   quantities  for   small  clinics   were                                                                    
prohibitively expensive;  vaccines typically expired  in six                                                                    
months and  had to  be discarded  if they  were not  used in                                                                    
time. She  explained that  for over 30  years the  state had                                                                    
purchased a  large vaccine quantity  and had kept  the stock                                                                    
moving  to  prevent  expiration  issues.  Currently  various                                                                    
providers had some children who  qualified for the federally                                                                    
funded  Vaccines  for  Children  program;  approximately  50                                                                    
percent of  the state's  children qualified.  She elaborated                                                                    
that  the   program  vaccines  were  kept   separately  from                                                                    
vaccines  for  insured  children; vaccinations  for  insured                                                                    
children  could not  be  traded out  for  recipients of  the                                                                    
Vaccines  for  Children.  Many clinics  were  not  currently                                                                    
offering   vaccines  due   to  the   complex  administrative                                                                    
function and  potential loss in  revenue that  occurred when                                                                    
vaccines expired.                                                                                                               
Representative  Wilson referenced  a bubble  chart ["SB  169                                                                    
Statewide  Immunization Program"  pyramid chart].  She asked                                                                    
for verification  that the mandate  only applied  to private                                                                    
payors under the bill; it would  be up to the other entities                                                                    
to decide whether they wanted to participate.                                                                                   
4:23:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator  Giessel  replied  that  participation  for  private                                                                    
payors and small clinics would  be voluntary. She pointed to                                                                    
the "SB  169 Statewide  Immunization Program"  pyramid chart                                                                    
(copy   on  file).   She   recommended   hearing  from   the                                                                    
department's program manager Jill Lewis for details.                                                                            
Representative Wilson  asked whether Tricare,  Medicare, and                                                                    
Medicaid would be forced to  participate in the program. She                                                                    
thought  private payors  equated to  private insurance.  She                                                                    
wanted  to  ensure  that  the  program  included  more  than                                                                    
private insurance.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.                                                                                       
4:24:45 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMES  MATTEUCCI,  MERCK  SHARP  AND  DOHME,  PHARMACEUTICAL                                                                    
RESEARCH    AND   MANUFACTURERS    ASSOCIATION,   AND    THE                                                                    
BIOTECHNOLOGY    INDUSTRY    ORGANIZATION,   testified    in                                                                    
opposition to the bill. The  organizations were committed to                                                                    
growing the  vaccine market and ensuring  that vaccines were                                                                    
widely  distributed  and  used.   He  stated  that  vaccines                                                                    
provided  an  enormous  value  to  healthcare  in  terms  of                                                                    
quality of  a patient's  experience in lessening  the burden                                                                    
of  disease and  in  lowering overall  healthcare costs.  He                                                                    
stressed  that the  organizations were  not discrediting  or                                                                    
undermining  the  value  of  an  adult  vaccine  market.  He                                                                    
complimented  Senator  Giessel  for   taking  up  the  issue                                                                    
several years earlier when the  federal Vaccine for Children                                                                    
program    funding    was   significantly    reduced.    The                                                                    
organizations were  specifically opposed to the  creation of                                                                    
an  adult  vaccine  program  using an  assessment  on  to  a                                                                    
private plan.  The organizations believed that  the proposed                                                                    
program was  precedent setting;  other states  had attempted                                                                    
unsuccessfully to  implement a similar program.  He detailed                                                                    
that the states  using a format of an  adult vaccine program                                                                    
using   private   dollars    had   been   intermittent   and                                                                    
unsuccessful overall.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Stoltze  interjected and  relayed that SB  64 would                                                                    
not be heard during that day.                                                                                                   
Mr. Matteucci focused on problems  the bill solved, problems                                                                    
it  created, and  problems it  ignored. He  stated that  the                                                                    
bill  did not  solve  a problem.  He  communicated that  the                                                                    
federal   Affordable  Care   Act   required  private   plans                                                                    
participating  in  the  market  to provide  a  full  vaccine                                                                    
benefit  for enrollees.  He explained  that SB  169 was  for                                                                    
private   plans   and   benefitting  people   with   private                                                                    
insurance. He stressed that the  benefit already existed and                                                                    
that  with  or without  the  bill  the patient's  experience                                                                    
would be unchanged.                                                                                                             
Mr.   Matteucci   looked   at  problems   created   by   the                                                                    
legislation. The organizations  believed the bill threatened                                                                    
the adult  market for vaccines.  The market was  growing and                                                                    
an  increasing number  of diseases  were being  successfully                                                                    
treated  by  more vaccines  from  companies  such as  Merck,                                                                    
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis,  and other; the companies                                                                    
had dedicated enormous amounts of  research and resources to                                                                    
bringing  the vaccines  to  market  and commercializing.  He                                                                    
stated that  under the legislation  the state took  over the                                                                    
negotiating  authority  of  a  plan  such  as  Premera  with                                                                    
another private company (e.g. Merck)  for the benefit of the                                                                    
plan. He  explained that the  plan's premium  retained would                                                                    
be increased because  the state would be  negotiating on its                                                                    
behalf.  The  organizations   believed  that  the  precedent                                                                    
established  under  the  bill would  negatively  impact  the                                                                    
adult  vaccine  market  nationwide.  He  believed  that  the                                                                    
bill's  underlying funding  structure  was  in question.  He                                                                    
detailed that  the assessment  or tax  on private  plans was                                                                    
clear;  the plans  would participate  based on  market share                                                                    
and  utilization.  However,  the  bill also  relied  on  the                                                                    
participation  of Employee  Retirement  Income Security  Act                                                                    
(ERISA) third-party  plans, Medicaid,  and Medicare;  it was                                                                    
not possible  to proactively assess  monies for  these plans                                                                    
for  the purpose  of providing  care  at a  future time.  He                                                                    
stated that if  the past was prologue the  ERISA plans would                                                                    
not  participate; Tricare  in the  states of  Washington and                                                                    
Idaho had  elected not to  participate in  similar programs.                                                                    
In  Idaho the  state  had been  responsible  for picking  up                                                                    
unanticipated  costs of  approximately $600,000  annually to                                                                    
pay for  the backfill  of non-participating ERISA  plans. He                                                                    
discussed  that   Medicaid  was   a  federal   program  that                                                                    
reimbursed for  services delivered;  it was not  possible to                                                                    
proactively assess  Medicaid for a healthcare  service to be                                                                    
delivered in the future unless  it was petitioned for a plan                                                                    
amendment to the Medicaid plan.                                                                                                 
Mr. Matteucci  emphasized that  while universal  coverage of                                                                    
vaccines was  a goal  at Merck, universal  purchase programs                                                                    
had not  been demonstrated  to be a  silver bullet.  The CDC                                                                    
had done  a recent study showing  that three of the  top ten                                                                    
utilization states were  universal purchase states; however,                                                                    
there were  universal purchase states  in the bottom  ten as                                                                    
well.   He  agreed   that  promoting   vaccines,  conducting                                                                    
educational   outreach,   and  incentivizing   patients   or                                                                    
providers to  properly vaccinate  themselves was the  way to                                                                    
go; however,  universal purchase states as  a mechanism were                                                                    
not rate increasers.                                                                                                            
Mr. Matteucci addressed the problem  ignored by the bill. He                                                                    
stated that  the bill ignored the  uninsured population; the                                                                    
population needing  help the most.  The bill had  the intent                                                                    
to get to the uninsured  through the regulatory process, but                                                                    
the bill contained nothing that  benefited the uninsured. He                                                                    
noted  that  the  number  would dwindle  over  time  as  the                                                                    
Affordable Care Act was rolled  out, but the uninsured would                                                                    
either be too  wealthy for Medicaid or would  lack a private                                                                    
insurance through a  partner or other. He  detailed that the                                                                    
uninsured individuals  may lose  work if  they get  sick and                                                                    
miss  work;  the  economic  impact   to  families  could  be                                                                    
staggering.  He summarized  that the  bill did  not solve  a                                                                    
problem in the adult market;  the problem had been solved by                                                                    
the  Affordable   Care  Act.  He  stressed   that  the  bill                                                                    
significantly threatened the adult  private market in Alaska                                                                    
by positioning  the state  as a  negotiator for  one private                                                                    
entity  against  another  for the  benefit  of  one  private                                                                    
entity. He  stated that the patient  experience would remain                                                                    
unchanged  regardless of  the bill.  Finally, the  uninsured                                                                    
were   ignored  by   the   legislation.  The   organizations                                                                    
recommended the  removal of the  adult portion of  the bill.                                                                    
He pointed  to the vagary of  the phased in program  and the                                                                    
potentially  negative implications.  Merck was  committed to                                                                    
working with the  sponsor and department to  find a solution                                                                    
over  the   course  of  the  next   year  that  specifically                                                                    
identified and addressed the adult  uninsured portion of the                                                                    
population. The solution could be  an appropriation from the                                                                    
state or another mechanism.                                                                                                     
4:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg asked  for verification  that Mr.                                                                    
Matteucci's primary objection  was to the idea  of the state                                                                    
exerting its buying  power by pooling its  needs. He thanked                                                                    
Senator Giessel for bringing the  bill forward. He had asked                                                                    
the commissioner in the past  about what the state was doing                                                                    
to increase its  bargaining power by enlarging  the pools of                                                                    
healthcare  industry   components.  He  observed   that  the                                                                    
pharmaceutical  manufacturers  always  had  the  ability  to                                                                    
choose not  to sell  a drug  at a  certain price.  He stated                                                                    
that a  larger pool would  drive the cost down,  which would                                                                    
be a direct benefit to the state and programs.                                                                                  
Mr. Matteucci replied  that his argument was  not related to                                                                    
pooling. He elaborated that pooling  took place on a variety                                                                    
of  levels;   the  state  currently   pooled  pharmaceutical                                                                    
benefits  under Medicaid  with  other  states. He  contended                                                                    
that the action  under the bill was different;  the bill was                                                                    
for people in the private  marketplace who receive a private                                                                    
benefit from  a private  plan. He detailed  that it  was not                                                                    
the traditional  concept of a  state pooling  its resources;                                                                    
it was  the exercise  of the  state interceding  between two                                                                    
private  entities  negotiating  price   and  volume  in  the                                                                    
private marketplace  for the benefit  of one of  the private                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg  believed  the  purpose  was  the                                                                    
same, but  that the organizations objected  to the structure                                                                    
of  the  proposal. He  addressed  testimony  that a  patient                                                                    
would not see any cost differences  as a result of the bill.                                                                    
He opined  that part of  the problem  was that there  was no                                                                    
transparency on the cost of  vaccines when they were covered                                                                    
by insurance.  He remarked that  people would be  unhappy to                                                                    
learn about  price differentials between  various healthcare                                                                    
facilities. He discussed that the  bill was in line with the                                                                    
state's goal  to get a  handle on healthcare costs.  Part of                                                                    
the solution  was to make  healthcare recipients  more aware                                                                    
of the  costs of  services. He believed  plan administrators                                                                    
also saw the issue as a problem.                                                                                                
Mr.  Matteucci answered  that transparency  was a  key issue                                                                    
included  in the  Affordable Care  Act  and in  a number  of                                                                    
bills  nationwide.  He  asserted  that the  bill  would  not                                                                    
necessarily make  any costs transparent to  patients; it was                                                                    
simply  negotiating on  behalf of  a particular  health plan                                                                    
against another  commercial enterprise.  The balance  of the                                                                    
discount would  likely be  retained in  the premium  for the                                                                    
health  plan; there  was  no mechanism  that  passed on  the                                                                    
savings  to patients.  The bill  benefitted the  plan itself                                                                    
because  a greater  portion of  the premium  value would  be                                                                    
retained given the state's negotiated vendor discount.                                                                          
Representative  Munoz  asked   whether  providers  currently                                                                    
purchased   vaccines   directly  from   the   pharmaceutical                                                                    
associations. She wondered whether  under the bill the state                                                                    
would   purchase  the   vaccines  and   would  act   as  the                                                                    
Mr.  Matteucci answered  that he  was not  an expert  on the                                                                    
distribution   channels.   He  explained   that   individual                                                                    
providers  had several  sources  of  vaccines for  Medicare,                                                                    
Medicaid, Tricare, and private  plans; the providers reached                                                                    
individual agreements with private  plans. He addressed cost                                                                    
and  relayed   that  the  companies  he   worked  for  would                                                                    
negotiate  agreements  with each  plan  in  each state;  the                                                                    
agreements  would  be different  because  it  was a  private                                                                    
marketplace.  Cost was  based on  sales volume  and expected                                                                    
return on  investment. He added  that in the  private market                                                                    
it was  unusual to have the  state step in and  negotiate on                                                                    
behalf  of a  plan  alongside his  companies. The  companies                                                                    
recommended  that the  state pursue  a separate  program for                                                                    
uninsured adults  that would not be  captured under Medicaid                                                                    
or  the Affordable  Care  Act.  He would  follow  up on  how                                                                    
vaccines were obtained.                                                                                                         
4:42:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair   Neuman  asked   for  Mr.   Matteucci's  contact                                                                    
information. Co-Chair  Stoltze replied that  the information                                                                    
would be provided.                                                                                                              
JANA   SHOCKMAN,  PRESIDENT,   ALASKA  NURSES   ASSOCIATION,                                                                    
ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference),  spoke  in  support of  the                                                                    
legislation.   She  spoke   to  the   bill's  inclusion   of                                                                    
immunizations  for  adults.  She  relayed  that  every  year                                                                    
adults ended up in hospital  critical care units as a result                                                                    
of  illnesses  such as  flu  and  pneumonia; both  would  be                                                                    
covered under  the bill's vaccination program.  The majority                                                                    
of the patients were  young and previously healthy; however,                                                                    
they had  not received  vaccinations. She stressed  that the                                                                    
illnesses  could be  life threatening  and  could have  life                                                                    
altering  consequences.  She  emphasized the  importance  of                                                                    
making the  vaccinations easily  accessible at  a reasonable                                                                    
cost  to providers.  She  stated that  the  bill provided  a                                                                    
means  for   the  state  to   protect  its   residents  with                                                                    
affordable vaccines.  She urged the committee's  support for                                                                    
the legislation.                                                                                                                
4:45:11 PM                                                                                                                    
PATRICIA SENNER,  ALASKA NURSES ASSOCIATION,  ANCHORAGE (via                                                                    
teleconference),  spoke in  favor  of  the legislation.  She                                                                    
discussed the  vaccine supply  chain. She  communicated that                                                                    
Alaska  had many  small providers  which meant  that it  was                                                                    
necessary  to  pool together  to  purchase  vaccines at  the                                                                    
cheapest  rate possible.  She  had run  a  small clinic  and                                                                    
pointed  to the  considerable difference  in vaccine  prices                                                                    
between the clinic and the  hospital. As a private provider,                                                                    
she  paid  upfront  for vaccines  and  was  reimbursed  once                                                                    
vaccines were  given. She stressed  that it put  an enormous                                                                    
burden  on private  providers, particularly  family practice                                                                    
doctors and  pediatricians. She addressed the  importance of                                                                    
providing vaccines  to young adults. She  explained that the                                                                    
flu was  likely to be  much more severe for  pregnant women.                                                                    
She  spoke  to  the  goal of  vaccinating  young  women  and                                                                    
families  to  prevent  the  spread   of  whooping  cough  to                                                                    
infants. She relayed  that it made a  difference to patients                                                                    
how the vaccines  were made available. She  detailed that if                                                                    
a private provider could not  pay to bring the vaccines into                                                                    
their  clinic, they  could not  provide their  patients with                                                                    
vaccines  on   normal  visits;  requiring  patients   to  go                                                                    
elsewhere for  vaccines increased the probability  that they                                                                    
would not  follow through. She  urged the committee  to pass                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
4:48:18 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM  STREUR,  COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH  AND                                                                    
SOCIAL  SERVICES, spoke  in support  of the  legislation. He                                                                    
stated that  the bill would help  the state in the  long run                                                                    
and would help  to reduce costs. He noted that  the bill was                                                                    
not  a  magic  bullet,  but  it  would  improve  access  and                                                                    
quality.   He  understood   that  challenges   would  exist,                                                                    
including how to  work the adult population  in. He believed                                                                    
the  three-year phase-in  would  provide  an opportunity  to                                                                    
address  any kinks  such  as  determining funding  partners,                                                                    
covered population,  and covered  vaccines. He  believed the                                                                    
bill   presented  an   opportunity  to   address  increasing                                                                    
healthcare  costs  and to  look  at  the state's  vulnerable                                                                    
population that had no other coverage.                                                                                          
Vice-Chair Neuman  asked how the legislation  would not cost                                                                    
the state  money. He had been  told that the bill  would not                                                                    
result in costs  to the state; he wondered  if that factored                                                                    
in  savings  in  medical  costs that  would  occur  if  more                                                                    
individuals received vaccinations.                                                                                              
Commissioner Streur  replied that part of  the savings would                                                                    
be  related to  downstream healthcare  cost reductions.  The                                                                    
initial savings would be in the  cost of the vaccine and the                                                                    
state's ability to pool resources to purchase vaccines.                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Neuman pointed  to the  $28 million  fiscal note                                                                    
and wondered how the bill cost nothing.                                                                                         
Commissioner Streur replied that  the bill was an assessment                                                                    
to  insurance  carriers  (e.g. Medicare,  Medicaid,  Premera                                                                    
Blue Cross,  and other). The  goal was  to bring on  as many                                                                    
people as  possible at a  lower vaccine cost, to  provide an                                                                    
incentive to  reduce provider costs  within the  system, and                                                                    
ideally to return the investment to the purchaser.                                                                              
Vice-Chair Neuman  asked if  the assessment  was a  fee that                                                                    
would be charged to  insurance carriers. Commissioner Streur                                                                    
replied in the affirmative.                                                                                                     
Vice-Chair Neuman  noted that  there was  currently $700,000                                                                    
in  general  funds  in  the  department's  base  budget.  He                                                                    
wondered  what  would  happen  if  the  legislative  finance                                                                    
subcommittee chose to reduce the department's budget.                                                                           
Commissioner  Streur  answered  that  was  experienced  with                                                                    
budget reductions.                                                                                                              
4:52:12 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
CSSB 169(FIN)  was HEARD and  HELD in committee  for further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 287                                                                                                            
     "An  Act approving  and ratifying  the sale  of royalty                                                                    
     oil by  the State of  Alaska to Tesoro  Corporation and                                                                    
     Tesoro   Refining  and   Marketing  Company   LLC;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
4:52:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze  relayed that  HB 287  had reported  out of                                                                    
committee  during the  morning  meeting, but  had been  held                                                                    
until the fiscal note had been received.                                                                                        
Representative Costello spoke to  the fiscal notes including                                                                    
one  new indeterminate  fiscal note  from the  Department of                                                                    
Natural  Resources and  one  new  indeterminate fiscal  note                                                                    
from the Department of Revenue.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze noted a significant  cost potential for the                                                                    
tax  credits. He  believed the  fiscal notes  were accurate,                                                                    
but not  reflective of  the future cost.  He noted  that the                                                                    
fiscal notes would accompany the bill.                                                                                          
[Note: CSHB  287(FIN) was reported  out of  committee during                                                                    
the  4/14/2014  8:30 a.m.  meeting.  The  bill was  held  to                                                                    
discuss one  new forthcoming indeterminate fiscal  note from                                                                    
the   Department   of   Natural  Resources   and   one   new                                                                    
indeterminate fiscal  note from  the Department  of Revenue.                                                                    
For   additional  information   see   4/14/2014  8:30   a.m.                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 316                                                                                                            
     "An  Act relating  to  workers'  compensation fees  for                                                                    
     medical  treatment and  services; relating  to workers'                                                                    
     compensation   regulations;   and  providing   for   an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
4:55:50 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:57:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed intent  to introduce and hold the                                                                    
Representative  Gara MOVED  to  ADOPT Amendment  1 (copy  on                                                                    
     Insert  "(4) The  fee schedules  of (A)  - (C)  of this                                                                    
     subsection  shall  not be  used  for  any procedure  or                                                                    
     service  without  modification  unless those  fees  are                                                                    
     adequate  as  written to  meet  the  service charge  of                                                                    
     providers in an area so  that patient access to quality                                                                    
     medical care is not compromised."                                                                                          
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
Representative Gara  pointed to a concern  that the workers'                                                                    
compensation rate  would be the  Medicare or  Medicaid rate.                                                                    
He  understood  that it  was  not  the sponsor's  intention;                                                                    
therefore,   Amendment  1   clarified   that  the   workers'                                                                    
compensation  rate would  not be  the  Medicare or  Medicaid                                                                    
rates unless they were adequate  to ensure patient access to                                                                    
quality  medical   care.  He   stated  that   the  sponsor's                                                                    
intention  was that  there  would be  a  multiplier at  some                                                                    
point in time.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  asked Representative Gara to  withdraw the                                                                    
amendment to be reoffered and heard at a later time.                                                                            
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Stoltze  explained  that the  amendment  would  be                                                                    
taken  up at  a  later time  and the  sponsor  would have  a                                                                    
chance to comment.                                                                                                              
Representative  Thompson MOVED  to  ADOPT  Amendment 2  (28-                                                                    
LS1362\P.l Wallace, 4/8/14) (copy on file):                                                                                     
     Page 1, line 11:                                                                                                           
     Delete "board and adopted by reference"                                                                                    
     Insert "medical services review committee [BOARD] and                                                                      
     adopted by the board                                                                                                       
     Page 2, line 21:                                                                                                           
     Delete "(1)"                                                                                                               
     Delete "board"                                                                                                             
     Insert "medical services review committee"                                                                                 
     Page 2, line 22:                                                                                                           
     Delete "board"                                                                                                             
     Insert "medical services review committee"                                                                                 
     Page 2, line 23, following "adopted":                                                                                      
     Insert "by the board"                                                                                                      
     Page 2, line 23:                                                                                                           
     Delete ";"                                                                                                                 
     Insert "."                                                                                                                 
     Page 2, lines 24 - 29:                                                                                                     
     Delete all material.                                                                                                       
     Page 3, following line 23:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                           
     "(p)  The  medical   services  review  committee  shall                                                                    
     formulate   a   conversion   factor  and   submit   the                                                                    
     conversion  factor to  the  commissioner  of labor  and                                                                    
     workforce  development. If  the  commissioner does  not                                                                    
     approve  the conversion  factor,  the medical  services                                                                    
     review  committee shall  revise  the conversion  factor                                                                    
     and  submit  the  revised   conversion  factor  to  the                                                                    
     commissioner for approval."                                                                                                
     Page 4, following line 15:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
     "*  Sec. 4.  AS 23.30.395  is amended  by adding  a new                                                                    
     paragraph to read:                                                                                                         
     (42)  "medical  services  review committee"  means  the                                                                    
     committee established under AS 23.30.0950)."                                                                               
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 4, line 16:                                                                                                           
     Delete "AS 23.30.097(j) - (o)"                                                                                             
     Insert "AS 23.30.097(j) - (p)"                                                                                             
     Page 4, line 18:                                                                                                           
     Delete "sec. 4"                                                                                                            
     Insert "sec. 5"                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
Representative Thompson  relayed that the amendment  came at                                                                    
the  sponsor's  request.  He  explained  that  in  the  bill                                                                    
version P [CSHB  316 (L&C)] the conversion  factors were set                                                                    
by the  workers' compensation board with  the recommendation                                                                    
of the  medical services  review board. Under  the amendment                                                                    
the  medical services  review committee  would directly  set                                                                    
the conversion factor for the  new fee schedule, which would                                                                    
then be submitted  to the commissioner of  the Department of                                                                    
Labor  and Workforce  Development (DLWD).  He detailed  that                                                                    
the workers' compensation board  was comprised of 18 people.                                                                    
He stated  that it  was simpler  to use  the board  that was                                                                    
already   responsible   for   oversight  of   the   workers'                                                                    
compensation system,  regulation review, and serving  on the                                                                    
hearing panels.  The medical  services review  committee was                                                                    
made up of  9 people including members of  the state medical                                                                    
association,    chiropractic     society,    nursing    home                                                                    
association, and a healthcare provider.                                                                                         
ANNA  LATHAM, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE  KURT OLSON,  confirmed                                                                    
the sponsor's  support of Amendment  2. She stated  that the                                                                    
amendment  would  clean up  the  current  bill so  that  the                                                                    
medical  services review  committee would  directly set  the                                                                    
conversion factor instead of an  18 person board tasked with                                                                    
other   duties.  The   amendment   would   allow  the   DLWD                                                                    
commissioner to  approve or deny  the conversion  factor set                                                                    
by the  medical services  review committee before  the board                                                                    
adopted it into regulation. The  intent was to have a person                                                                    
at the  commissioner level  approving the  conversion factor                                                                    
to ensure that it was set at a fair and reasonable price.                                                                       
Vice-Chair  Neuman  asked  what  would  happen  to  the  fee                                                                    
schedule when  a new commissioner was  appointed. Ms. Latham                                                                    
replied  that the  conversion factors  would continue  to be                                                                    
set by  the medical services  review committee on  an annual                                                                    
basis. The commissioner would approve the rates annually.                                                                       
Vice-Chair Neuman  asked about sending a  patient outside of                                                                    
the  state  for  services.  Ms.  Latham  referred  to  other                                                                    
legislation  sponsored by  Representative  Olson that  would                                                                    
require  that any  workers'  compensation treatment  out-of-                                                                    
state  would be  billed  at the  jurisdiction  in which  the                                                                    
patient was treated.                                                                                                            
Vice-Chair Neuman  noted that it  was a different  bill. Ms.                                                                    
Latham  replied that  currently  when a  person was  treated                                                                    
out-of-state for workers' compensation  claims they could be                                                                    
billed at Alaska's rates.                                                                                                       
Representative  Holmes asked  about  the  intent related  to                                                                    
Amendment 2.  She wanted more information  about the members                                                                    
on the medical services review committee.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Stoltze  replied that no  action would be  taken on                                                                    
the amendments during the current meeting.                                                                                      
HB  316  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN)                                                                                                
     "An  Act  relating  to  theft  and  property  offenses;                                                                    
     relating to  the definition of 'prior  convictions' for                                                                    
     certain   theft  offenses;   establishing  the   Alaska                                                                    
     Criminal   Justice   Commission    and   providing   an                                                                    
     expiration  date; relating  to the  crime of  custodial                                                                    
     interference;  relating to  the  duties  of the  Alaska                                                                    
     Judicial  Council;  relating  to jail-time  credit  for                                                                    
     offenders   in    court-ordered   treatment   programs;                                                                    
     relating  to  conditions  of  release,  probation,  and                                                                    
     parole;  relating  to  duties of  the  commissioner  of                                                                    
     corrections and  board of  parole; establishing  a fund                                                                    
     for  reducing recidivism  in the  Department of  Health                                                                    
     and  Social  Services;  requiring the  commissioner  of                                                                    
     health and  social services  to establish  programs for                                                                    
     persons  on conditions  of  release  or probation  that                                                                    
     require   testing   for   controlled   substances   and                                                                    
     alcoholic beverages;  requiring the board of  parole to                                                                    
     establish programs  for persons on parole  that require                                                                    
     testing   for  controlled   substances  and   alcoholic                                                                    
     beverages; relating to the duties  of the Department of                                                                    
     Health  and  Social  Services;  and  providing  for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
CSSB 64(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                       
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 129(FIN)                                                                                               
     "An Act extending the termination  date of the Board of                                                                    
     Certified  Real  Estate  Appraisers; relating  to  real                                                                    
     estate  appraisers;  and  providing  for  an  effective                                                                    
CSSB 129(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                      
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 178(FIN)                                                                                               
     "An  Act relating  to  the  passenger and  recreational                                                                    
     vehicle rental  taxes; and  providing for  an effective                                                                    
CSSB 178(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                      
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed future meeting schedules.                                                                            
5:04:29 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
1.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
3.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Section Analysis.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
5 CSSB 108(JUD) Summary of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6 SB108 Legal Memo 2 26 14.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6.2 SB108 Rule 37.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7 SB108 Support Letters - Dr. Don Brink, Chugiak, AK.PDF HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
12 SB108 OVR Written Testimony.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.1 SB108 Support - Dr. Donna Klecka, Eagle River, AK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.2 Support of SB108 - James Noble, Kenai, AK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
6.1 CSSB 108(JUD) Collateral Consequences & Reentry in Alaska.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
7.3 Support of SB108 - Carmen Gutierrez.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
House Finance OVR Opposition to SB 108.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB178 DOR Letter - Rodell.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
SB 178 Letters of Support.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
CSSB 178 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 178
SB 127 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Explanation of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 28.10.421 Registration Fee Rates.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Letters of Support.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 16.05.380 & .390 ADF&G.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - DMV Non DL Transactions FY 2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - DMV Revenue Sources.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - AK Statute 28.10.431(e) Re Municipal Tax Collection.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB 127 Support Documents - Alaska Tags & Titles Transaction Count and Revenue 04-13.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
SB169PayerPyramid_7Mar2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 WhoPaysFor VaccineInAK.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
AdultFluPneumoniaImmunizations2012.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
StateSupplyVaccinesDistributedByProviderType2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
Questions from Higgins March 26.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 Vaccines In AK short vsn (2).pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Additional Questions Rep. Higgins.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169FlowChart_7Mar2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 FAQs vsn I.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Support all.batch 1.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB169 Vaccines In AK short vsn (2).pptx HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Support batch 2.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Sponsor Stmt FIN.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Response to BIO concerns.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Opposition.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Opposition Pharma.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB 169 Historic vaccine photo.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 169
SB129 Supporting Documents-Letter AK Chamber.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Supporting Documents-DCCED BCREA Audit 2013.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Supporting Documents-Summary of Changes.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB129 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 129
SB 64 (HJUD) Presentation.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 64
SB 127 Testimony Opposition.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127
HB 287 New Fiscal Note CS FIN DOR.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 287
HB 287 New Fiscal Note CS FIN DNR.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 287
test Geddes Letter on SB 108.docx HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
HB 316 Amendment #2 Thompson.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 316
Replacement Amendment #1 Gara.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
HB 316
SB 56 APD Suggested Sentencing.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 56
SB 108 adm-40a Courts.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 108
AK Chamber SB 127 Stoltze April 17, 2014.pdf HFIN 4/14/2014 1:30:00 PM
SB 127