Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/30/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB212 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2018
2:50 p.m.
2:50:44 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Sponsor; Jane Pierson, Staff,
Representative Neal Foster; Tim Mearig, School Finance and
Facilities, Department of Education and Early Development;
Sylvan Robb, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Fate Putnam, Commissioner, Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), Department of Fish and
Game; Patrick Fitzgerald, Staff, Representative Harriet
Drummond; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Representative Harriet Drummond, Sponsor. Katheryn
Monfreda, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Department of Public Safety.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kerry Boyd, Superintendent, Yukon Koyukuk School District,
Eagle River; Tara Rich, Legal and Policy Director, American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, Anchorage; Tim
Hinterberger, Self, Anchorage; Amy Jackman, Keep Cannabis
Legal, Kenai.
SUMMARY
HB 212 REAA & SMALL MUNI SCHOOL DISTRICT FUND
CSHB 212(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
HB 231 CFEC: BD. SALARY;STAFF CLASSIFIED SERVICE
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 316 RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS
HB 316 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to funding for school construction
and major maintenance; and relating to the regional
educational attendance area and small municipal school
district fund."
2:52:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster passed the gavel to Co-Chair Seaton.
2:52:23 PM
AT EASE
2:52:56 PM
RECONVENED
REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, SPONSOR, provided detail about
the bill. He reported that HB 212 expanded the Regional
Education Attendance Area (REAA)and small municipal school
district fund to include major maintenance in addition to
new school construction. The bill would save the state
money by reducing the need for replacement. The bill was
supported by the Coalition for Education Equity, which was
a coalition comprised of several school districts and was
heavily involved in the Kasayulie decision. He asked his
staff to continue.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, provided
an explanation of changes in the new Committee Substitute
(CS).
Section 1 from version D is eliminated from version U
The new CS supports keeping the two lists for school
construction and major maintenance as they are
currently in statute.
Section 2 is new, amending AS 14.11.030(b) to add
clarifying language that it is the unexpended and
unobligated balance of the fund that may not exceed
$70,000,000.
Section 3 Adds a new subsection AS 14.11.030(e) that
states that not more than 20 percent of the fund
available for appropriation from the REAA and small
municipal school district fund may be used for major
maintenance projects.
Ms. Pierson cited the two spreadsheets that were included
in members' files; "With School Debt Program Reinstated"
and "Without School Debt Program Reinstated" (copy on
file). She continued to address the bill with a prepared
statement:
The school construction and major maintenance grant
programs were the only significant programs that
provided funding for new construction, renovation, or
major maintenance without bonding capacity. A healthy
and continued grant program for construction and
major maintenance provided a vetted solution to the
funding for high priority major maintenance needs such
as boilers, roofs, and other important systems and
safety measures in schools.
Ms. Pierson furthered that in 2010 the legislature passed
SB 237 - School Construction & Costs [CHAPTER 93 SLA 10 -
06/21/2010], which established the REAA and in 2013, five
small municipal districts were included in the fund. The
program was a success and greatly reduced the number of
schools on the school construction grant list. She
explained that the funding was based on the amount of debt
outstanding for municipal schools adjusted by the amount of
money spent on REAA schools and by the percent of student
population. The method provided a consistent level of
funding for REAA and small municipal school districts'
school construction and addressed the concerns raised in
the Kasayulie case. She furthered that in 2015 the
legislature passed SB 64 - School Bond Debt Reimbursement
[CHAPTER 3 SLA 15 - 04/24/2015], which placed a moratorium
on school projects employing debt reimbursement as
authorized by local voters until July 1, 2020. Currently
due to an increase in applications for the major
maintenance grant funding list the bill expanded the REAA
funding which was beneficial for rural and urban Alaska.
She elaborated that by including major maintenance to the
REAA fund other non-REAA projects could take priority on
the major maintenance list.
2:57:52 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 212, Work Draft 30-LS0741\U (Laffen,
3/29/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster summarized that the bill did not ask for
additional funding, it merely changed how the pie was cut
and how the funds were allocated. He explained that
currently the funding was only authorized for school
construction for REAA schools and the bill requested that
the money could also fund major maintenance. He emphasized
that the bill did not request more money.
Representative Wilson asked for the definition of major
maintenance. Ms. Pierson replied that the definition was in
AS 14.11.013. She read the following from the statute:
(A) avert imminent danger or correct life-threatening
situations;
(B) house students who would otherwise be
unhoused; for purposes of this subparagraph,
students are considered unhoused if the students
attend school in temporary facilities;
(C) protect the structure of existing school
facilities;
(D) correct building code deficiencies that
require major repair or rehabilitation in order
for the facility to continue to be used for the
educational program;
(E) achieve an operating cost savings;
(F) modify or rehabilitate facilities for the
purpose of improving the instructional program;
(G) meet an educational need not specified in (A)
- (F) of this paragraph, identified by the
department;?
Ms. Pierson indicated that the projects had to cost over
$25 thousand. Representative Wilson asked whether the
funding applied to any district or only REAA schools. Ms.
Pierson replied that the funding applied to REAA schools
and the small municipal districts. Representative Wilson
spoke about the state's other project list for school major
maintenance that included many urban schools. She stated
that REAA schools on the state major maintenance list that
were funded through the REAA fund would move off the list
and allow other schools to advance on the list.
3:00:40 PM
Ms. Pierson replied that a major maintenance list existed
and was included in members' packets (copy on file) titled
"Attachment 4 Major Maintenance List FY 19 Final," which
included the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) Capital Improvement Projects (FY 2019) Major
Maintenance Grant Fund. Representative Wilson was trying to
connect the dots and understand the project list Ms.
Pierson was referring to. She used an example with a top
listed school being a REAA school and inquired whether it
could use funding from the REAA fund versus using an
Undesignated General Fund (UGF) only appropriation. Ms.
Pierson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Tilton asked whether there was any
prioritization of maintenance versus new school
construction and if so, she wondered why. Ms. Pierson
explained that the reason the CS included that not more
than 20 percent of the fund available for appropriation
from the REAA and small municipal school district fund may
be used for major maintenance projects was to ensure the
priority was new school construction. The provision
specified "up to 20 percent" because at times of new school
construction utilizing 20 percent might not be possible.
Representative Tilton asked for the average lifespan of a
school building covered by the bill. Ms. Pierson deferred
to the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED).
Vice-Chair Gara recalled that in some cases it had been
easier to move up the major maintenance list if the school
district had more resources to justify its need in the
application, leaving districts with less funding at a
disadvantage on the list. He asked whether the scenario had
been a concern. Ms. Pierson responded that the Major
Maintenance Grant Fund was a grant program requiring
applications. She pointed to AS 14.11.011 that outlined
application requirements. She agreed that a better
application proposal could improve the chances of rising on
the list. However, she pointed to the current major
maintenance list and noted that the first, fifth, seventh,
eighth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth schools were
all REAA.
3:04:03 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not want a REAA school to not be
included on the major maintenance list if REAA funds were
diminished and guessed that was also the sponsors
intention. He deduced that the bill's purpose was to find
an "easier source of funding" for some major maintenance
but not remove REAA schools from the list. Ms. Pierson
answered in the affirmative and noted that was the reason
the sponsor wanted only one list. She detailed that there
was a cap on the REAA small municipal school fund of $70
million. She indicated that in 2011 some funding was moved
out of the fund and it would be "advantageous" to use funds
for maintenance.
Representative Tilton restated her question regarding an
average current building life span to help understand what
the maintenance level was.
TIM MEARIG, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, answered that no standard
life span for schools existed. The district used 50 years
as an average. Representative Tilton asked whether the 50
years applied to all school districts. Mr. Mearig responded
that it was difficult to speak to average life spans of
individual buildings but overall the state strove to
achieve 50 years of life for school facilities.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification. He wondered
whether the answer applied to REAA buildings. Mr. Mearig
replied that he was speaking about the average lifespan of
the buildings. He had details on the average age of schools
but was referring to average lifespan.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the list was upgraded.
He looked at the order of the list and asked why school
number 4 that was at the cut off in the prior year was not
always the first on the list the following year. He
inquired how the ranking took place. Mr. Mearig answered
that all the projects were ranked against a series of
criteria by points, which determined priority. He furthered
that if a project that was introduced in a given year had
points exceeding other projects previously on the list it
would out rank the prior year's priority schools.
Representative Guttenberg noted that priorities changed
from year to year. He asked if a school was given a chance
to redo its grant application from one year to the next.
3:10:10 PM
Mr. Mearig responded that every year a district had an
opportunity to apply for the grant. He reported that
several years ago the department allowed districts to
extend the previous year's application for an additional
year, so they would not have to invest in a new application
every year. The scores from the prior year were carried
over for one additional year, but the district would be
able to write a new application with better or different
information in an attempt to elevate the project on the
list.
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED public testimony.
KERRY BOYD, SUPERINTENDENT, YUKON KOYUKUK SCHOOL DISTRICT,
EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
legislation and believed it would help her school district.
The bill would potentially allow for the backlog of major
maintenance projects to be addressed. She stated the need
for the major maintenance grants to be funded. She reported
that the governor had requested $70 million in HB 282 -
Approp: Capital Budget Contingent on Tax. She asked whether
the funding would be included in the capital budget and
asked the committee to pass HB 212.
Representative Guttenberg asked Ms. Boyd to provide a
geographic description of the Yukon Koyukuk school
district. Ms. Boyd complied and noted that she was
presently in the Eagle River office. She listed the
districts that included six urban areas in Fairbanks,
Wasilla, Delta Junction, and Juneau. The ten rural remote
schools in the district were spread out over 70 thousand
square miles; most were accessed by airplane and two were
accessible via road. The district had some older schools
and that were addressed through the major maintenance list.
Co-Chair Seaton CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 212(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 212(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
3:15:23 PM
AT EASE
3:18:21 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission; and providing for an effective
date."
3:18:27 PM
FATE PUTNAM, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION (CFEC), DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "CSHB 231(FSH) Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission." dated March 30,
2018 (copy on file). He began on slide 2 Titled "
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission":
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) is a
regulatory and quasi-judicial agency that is tasked
to:
Limit entry of participants and vessels into the
commercial fisheries
Issue and transfer annual commercial fishing permits
and vessel licenses
Adjudicate appeals of actions including denials of
applications and transfers
Study, analyze, and report on the economics and
stability of commercial fisheries
Ensure reliable and timely access to fishery data; and
Promote the conservation and sustained yield
management of Alaska's commercial fishery resource
Assess demerit points against or suspend fishing
privileges of permit holders for convictions for
violations of commercial fishing laws
Mr. Putnam explained that the CFEC licensed all commercial
fisheries, whether limited or open. Limited fisheries
amounted to 68 and open fisheries totaled approximately
200. The CFEC charged .04 percent per year of ex-vessel
income on each licensee and was calculated retroactively.
He noted that the CFED had not limited a fishery since 2004
but could, based on monitoring conservation and management
data. The fisheries data the CFED collected was compiled
into reports and shared with different various state and
federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). He indicated that fisheries were
a sustainable resource providing a return year after year
and the CFEC monitored biomass data to ensure resources
sustainability as mandated by the constitution. The
directive to assess demerit points was adopted by the
legislature in 1998 for salmon fisheries and the commission
suspended other fisheries permit holders via court order.
The court had the ability to suspend fishing licenses in
all other areas.
3:22:32 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, moved to slide 3 titled "What HB 231 Does"
and addressed what the bill would do as follows:
? Reduces number of commissioners of the CFEC from
three to two
? Changes compensation for commissioners:
Commissioner serving as chair retains a Range
27($8789/month)
Pay for second commissioner is reduced to a Range
24 ($7225/month)
? Removes the CFEC staff from exempt service and
assigns them to classified service
Division of Personnel/Labor Relations will
perform a classification study and place
positions on appropriate classified pay scale
Current CFEC staff will not receive a reduction
in paytheir pay will be "frozen" until the pay
scale catches up to the newly classified position
New CFEC staff will start at the new Range/Step A
Staff will be represented by appropriate unions
Supervisors Union (SU) and General Government
Unit (GGU) or Confidential Employees Association
(CEA)
Ms. Robb advanced to slide 4 titled "Why is HB 231 Needed":
• Caseload is lighter
Decisions from the CFEC have declined over
time
• Save money
Align commissioners to similar ranges of
similar positions (OAH, Hearing Officers)
Align staff with similar positions in
classified service
Ms. Robb mentioned the organizational chart on slide 5
titled "Current CFEC Organizational Chart".
Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there were decisions
commissioners had to make that involved a tie breaking
vote.
Mr. Putman directed attention to page 2, Section 6 of the
legislation:
Sec. 6. AS 16.43.110 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) In case of a tie vote between commissioners in an
adjudicatory proceeding, the decision of the hearing
officer is the final administrative decision of the
commission subject to review by a superior court under
AS 44.62 (Administrative 22 Procedure Act).
Mr. Putman elaborated that adjudicatory decisions were
initially made by hearing officers. In the event the
current commissioner Dale Kelly and he could not arrive at
consensus the decision of the hearing officer would stand
subject to appeal by the Superior Court and possibly the
Supreme Court. Historically, hundreds of cases were
appealed to the Superior Court and 70 cases moved on to the
Supreme Court.
3:27:36 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if there was a reason for two
commissioners instead of one. Mr. Putman replied that he
had been on the commission for four months; there was a
tremendous amount of work and he was very pleased there was
a second commissioner. He spoke to the balance made between
the two commissioners due to their backgrounds; Ms. Kelly
with extensive fisheries experience and Mr. Putnam who was
an attorney. He believed reducing the number from three to
two was feasible. He related that the transfer decisions
the commissioners made were difficult and it was best to
utilize "two minds".
Representative Wilson asked how many cases historically had
been overturned by the commissioners from the hearing
officer's administrative decisions and how many cases had
the court overturned. Mr. Putman did not have the data. He
detailed that 2 or 3 cases out of the 70 Supreme Court
cases were overturned. In addition, the Superior Court
often remanded decisions back to the commission and the
commission could make a redetermination of its decision
that went back to the Superior Court. Representative Wilson
asked if the commission was necessary when ultimately a
licensee could use the courts. Mr. Putman responded that
the legislature had initially determined that three
commissioners were necessary to weigh and balance the
important decisions that were derived from a multimillion-
dollar industry.
3:32:12 PM
Representative Wilson referred to page 2 of the bill. The
bill specified that without two commissioners a single
commissioner may exercise all the powers and perform all
the duties of the commission. Mr. Putman replied she was
referencing Section 2 beginning on page 1, lines 1 through
3. He elucidated that the intent of the provision was only
on condition of a vacancy. The section allowed the
commission to continue to function.
Representative Wilson thought the interpretation was
concerning. She deduced that a commissioner may not be
appointed, and it would not be the fault of the commission.
She spoke to the salary ranges listed in the bill. She
wondered if pay increases applied. Ms. Robb answered that
the pay would increase over time due to step increases.
Representative Wilson asked if the commissioner designee
was currently employed by the state and would the starting
salary be commensurate with the individual's current
salary. Ms. Robb believed she was asking if the person
would retain their current step if their range was higher
than the starting salary listed. She answered in the
affirmative. Representative Wilson wondered why they were
unionizing employees. She had heard the only reason for
unions were because of bad employers. She wondered why the
staff would be unionized. She wondered if there was a
problem. Ms. Robb replied in the negative. She detailed
that the reason for the classification was the positions
were similar to jobs that currently existed in the
classified service and the change was appropriate based on
the principle of "like pay for like work".
3:36:06 PM
Representative Wilson requested a chart to further
understand the pay scale for non-unionized individuals. She
wanted to compare the current pay and how it would increase
over time. She also requested the information on appeals.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to the testimony about a person
retaining their steps when transferring to a commissioner
position. He thought that if a person was currently working
at a lower range the starting salary would begin at a step
A of Range 24. Ms. Robb answered in the affirmative.
Representative Ortiz asked for a summary of the bill's
impact. Ms. Robb answered that the bill reduced the number
of commissioners from three to two. In addition, HB 231
reduced the pay range of the commissioner who was not the
chair and moved the commission's staff from the exempt
service to the classified service. Representative Ortiz
asked if the net impact would drive down the cost at CFEC.
Ms. Robb responded in the affirmative. She reiterated that
the current staff would be held harmless in terms of pay.
3:38:40 PM
Representative Pruitt asked for the current number of
positions. Mr. Putman referred to the organizational chart
on slide 5. He answered that there were 22 positions
however, one of the three commissioners were vacant, a
legal specialist, executive secretary, clerk, and the
research department was vacant. Currently, 15 employees
remained. He expected the commission to operate at the
reduced level except for possibly hiring one research
assistant.
Representative Pruitt asked if employees had asked to have
their status changed. Ms. Robb answered that there had been
some interest from current employees.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster announced that amendments were due by 5:00
p.m. on Tuesday April 3, 2018.
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to the sealing of certain court
records; restricting the publication of certain
records of convictions on a publicly available
website; relating to public records; and amending Rule
37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration."
3:41:00 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND,
explained the bill. The legislation was designed to seal
the court records of people who were convicted of simple
possession of marijuana prior to legalization. He voiced
that the burden of a lifelong criminal record for persons
convicted of a crime that was currently legal kept them
from achieving their full potential. The intent of the bill
did not remove the records of serious criminal offenders.
The purpose of the bill was to eliminate restrictions and
barriers that may be keeping Alaskans from gaining
employment, finding housing, qualify for schooling,
advancing in certifications, or reaching a higher quality
of life. He characterized the legislation as a "jobs bill".
He furthered that the voter initiative to legalize
marijuana had been in effect for three years. Legalization
created prosperous small business owners and generated
millions in revenue for the state. Many Alaskans had
benefited from legalization and the bill would eliminate
the barriers for some Alaskans from becoming "productive"
and "contributing members of society".
Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Sec. 1 AS 12.62.160
Stating that an agency may not release records of a
criminal case to the public if the defendant was
charged with possession of a controlled substance
schedule VIA.
Schedule VIA definition: AS 11.71.190 (a) a substance
shall be placed in schedule VIA if it is found under
AS 11.71.120 to have the lowest degree of danger or
probable danger to the person or public.
(b) marijuana is a schedule VIA controlled substance.
Person had to have been 21 years or older at time of
offense.
Sec. 2 AS 22.35(040)
Is amended by adding: AS 22.35.040 Confidential court
records. A court record of a criminal case is will be
made confidential if defendant was convicted of VIA
possession through state or local ordinance as a
stand-alone charge.
Sec. 3 AS 40.25.120
Every person has a right to inspect a public record in
the state, including public records in recorders
offices except: (18) Records of a schedule VIA
possession for less than once ounce if it was a stand-
alone charge. Defines that a person must have been 21
or older for the confidentiality to apply.
Sec. 4
Alters indirect court rule amendment "Alaska Rules of
Administration" by limiting public access to certain
case records.
Sec. 5
States that because of section four of this act must
receive 2/3 majority vote in each house because of
Article IV Sec. 15 of the Alaska State Constitution.
Sec. 6
Provides effective date for 120 after bill signing.
3:45:24 PM
Co-Chair Seaton did not see the words "standalone" in the
bill but noted that Mr. Fitzgerald had mentioned them. He
cited page 4 of the bill, subparagraph (18), lines 19
through 23 as the new provision the bill was adding to
existing statute. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed to the language in
lines 22 through 23 "was not convicted of any other charge
in that case."
Representative Wilson provided the scenario of someone who
initially received higher charges but was convicted of the
lower offense in a plea bargain. She asked whether the
conviction of simple possession would completely seal the
record. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that if the courts plead
down to a simple possession only charge there was a reason
for doing so and the individual should not be discriminated
against. Representative Wilson provided an example where a
person received a driving under the influence (DUI) and a
marijuana charge. She asked if the DUI charge was dropped
and the person was convicted of simple possession the DUI
would also be removed. Mr. Fitzgerald replied in the
negative. Representative Wilson did not believe that was
what the bill language said. She read from the bill [page
4, subparagraph (18), lines 19 through 23]:
(18) records of a conviction under AS 11.71.060, or a
municipal ordinance with similar elements, for
possession of less than one ounce of a schedule VIA
controlled substance if the defendant was 21 years of
age or older at the time of commission of the offense
and was not convicted of any other charges in that
case.
Representative Wilson surmised that in the case of a
combined charge where the person was only convicted of the
marijuana charge both the charge and conviction would be
sealed. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that it was rare for a DUI
charge to plea down to simple possession of marijuana.
Representative Wilson did not care what rarely occurred.
She deduced that there could be five charges and everything
else would be sealed along with the simple possession
conviction.
3:49:33 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, answered
that Section 2, which applied to the court record worked
the same way as Representative Wilson's hypothetical
scenario. The bill applied to a conviction and not charges.
Representative Wilson used a domestic violence charge in
place of the DUI example and deduced that the domestic
violence charge would disappear because there were no
exemptions regarding other charges. Ms. Mead replied in the
affirmative and added that the conviction related to all
the charges in the case and maintained that all would
become confidential. She was unaware of how often the
scenario occurred. Representative Wilson wondered if the
idea for the legislation was because marijuana was now
legal.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, SPONSOR, replied that when
the marijuana initiative had been brought forward it had
been decided not to include the expungement feature in the
bill. She noted that other states had legalized marijuana
had adopted the measure in HB 316 and believed that the
governor of Vermont had expunged the records of 200 people
when marijuana became legal and California was beginning
the expungement process.
Representative Wilson thought that the same argument could
apply to felony crimes that were lowered to misdemeanors in
prior criminal reform legislation.
Representative Drummond believed that they were covering
new territory with the legalization of marijuana. She
stated that it had always been illegal to steal. She
elaborated that marijuana had been legal for three years
and many were profiting from the industry. She had heard of
situations where minors with simple possession charges were
applying to military academies but could never remove the
charge from their records that created a permanent
impediment to their lives. The bill applied only to adults
with simple possession. Representative Wilson understood
the goal of the bill, but she was concerned there could be
other charges accompanying a marijuana conviction. She
maintained her belief that the bill did not apply equally
to other charges that were lowered. She thought there may
be other safety issues in the current bill language but
would consider amendments to correct the issues.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were additional items Mr.
Fitzgerald wanted to cover.
Mr. Fitzgerald addressed the changes contained in the House
Judiciary Committee version of the bill. He indicated that
the CS eliminated the date of convictions prior to the
legalization date of February 24, 2015 and included that
"all charges had been encompassed" in the provision.
Additionally, the legislation specified that the provisions
applied to individuals 21 years of age or older.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
3:55:52 PM
TARA RICH, LEGAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), shared that she had submitted written
comments to the committee (copy on file). She spoke in
support of the bill. She related that she had not heard any
discussion regarding what sectors of the population the
bill would apply to. The ACLU had performed research based
on the arrest rate for simple marijuana possession but was
not able to discern the data for conviction rates. The data
showed that from 2008 through 2013 African Americans were
twice as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and
Alaska Native and American Indians were more than 1.5
times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than whites. She concluded that marijuana possession laws
were routinely enforced disproportionately against people
of color and was systematized in the war on drugs. The bill
sought to achieve equity in an unjust system.
Representative Wilson questioned why the person that
"pleaded out" or was convicted of simple possession that
was illegal at the time "should have no more punishment
because of that." Ms. Rich replied with an explanation
about the distinction between pleading guilty and a
conviction and noted that the state did not have to prove
guilt in a plea agreement. She indicated that particularly
with low level offences such as simple possession, it was
easier for people to plead guilty to avoid the disruption
in people's lives through incarceration. She noted that
there was evidence-based data that demonstrated plea
agreements effectuated the same harm as a conviction for
people of color without asking the state to fulfill its
duty of proving guilt. Representative Wilson restated her
question and emphasized that the person with the conviction
broke the law at the time. Ms. Rich pointed to the
disproportionate level of policing against minority
communities, which was well documented. She added that on a
national level, despite marijuana use at about the same
rate as Caucasians, African Americans were nearly four
times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
She voiced that the people of Alaska decided that the
activity was not criminal and coupled with systemic
discriminatory enforcement, she believed that the provision
was appropriate. Representative Wilson did not believe
police officers in Alaska were targeting anyone and were
merely trying to uphold the state's laws.
4:02:14 PM
TIM HINTERBERGER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
reported that he had been chair of the campaign to legalize
marijuana. He supported the bill. He relayed that the
original initiative was drafted as straight forward as
possible to maximize the chance of passage of the
initiative. Currently, other stated that legalized
marijuana adopted measures that sealed the record of
individuals with prior marijuana convictions. He believed
that the bill was "entirely consistent with ballot measure
two."
Vice-Chair Gara thanked Mr. Hinterberger for his work. He
warned that currently in Alaska law a student in possession
of marijuana on school grounds was subject to a Class A
felony and suggested that Mr. Hinterberger consider acting
to endorse statutory change in the future.
4:04:32 PM
AMY JACKMAN KEEP CANNABIS LEGAL, KENAI (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
She shared that she had been the campaign manager for the
Keep Cannabis Legal campaign the previous year. She thanked
the committee for the opportunity to testify. She hoped
that the committee would consider the wellbeing of everyone
in the state and keep an open mind. She spoke about a
divided society focused on differences that created fear
and judgement. She believed that historically cannabis had
been falsely demonized. She voiced issues regarding
corporations and did not consider them equal to people. She
favored a society built on love and acceptance of marijuana
use. She listed the medical and pleasurable benefits of
marijuana consumption and termed it a "miracle plant." She
strongly favored permanently sealing the records of non-
violent convictions based on cannabis.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson asked if a representative from the
Department of Public Safety was online. She referred to
the fiscal note and wondered whether the bill sealed the
records from the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
KATHERYN MONFREDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
responded that the department still questioned whether it
would receive the sealed records from the Court System for
criminal justice and law enforcement purposes.
Representative Wilson thought that the fiscal note
indicated that the records would be removed from the DPS
system. She asked for clarification. Ms. Monfreda answered
that the records would be removed from release for the
limited purpose of AS 12.62.160 (b)8 related to employment
or licensing purposes. The records would remain available
for law enforcement and other purposes.
4:14:28 PM
Representative Wilson asked for further information about
who had access to the information.
Co-Chair Foster gave an amendment deadline of the following
Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
HB 316 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:16:46 PM
AT EASE
4:17:05 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
week.
ADJOURNMENT
4:17:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.