Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/08/2017 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 20(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         March 8, 2017                                                                                          
                           1:04 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 20                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing                                                                     
elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages."                                                                  
     - MOVED CSHB 20(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
HOUSE BILL NO. 121                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to occupational safety and health enforcement                                                                  
penalties; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
BILL: HB 20                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN                                                                                            
01/18/17s      (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/16/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/18/17       (H)       STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
02/18/17       (H)       Moved CSHB 20(STA) Out of Committee                                                                    
02/18/17       (H)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/22/17       (H)       STA RPT CS (STA) 4DP 2DNP                                                                              
02/22/17       (H)       DP: TUCK, KNOPP, JOSEPHSON, KREISS-                                                                    
02/22/17       (H)       DNP: JOHNSON, BIRCH                                                                                    
03/03/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/03/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/03/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/06/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/06/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/06/17       (H)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/08/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
BILL: HB 121                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: OCC. HEALTH AND SAFETY CIVIL PENALTIES                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                                                                    
02/13/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/13/17       (H)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
02/27/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
02/27/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/27/17       (H)       MINUTE (L&C)                                                                                           
03/01/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/01/17       (H)       Moved HB 121 Out of Committee                                                                          
03/01/17       (H)       MINUTE (L&C)                                                                                           
03/03/17       (H)       L&C RPT 4DP                                                                                            
03/03/17       (H)       DP: STUTES, WOOL, JOSEPHSON, KITO                                                                      
03/08/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney                                                                                                           
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 20, answered                                                                    
BIANCA CARPENETTI, Staff                                                                                                        
Representative Sam Kito, III                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 121, introduced                                                                 
the legislation on behalf of the Labor and Commerce Committee,                                                                  
Representative Kito, Chair.                                                                                                     
DEBORAH KELLY, Director                                                                                                         
Division of Labor Standards and Safety                                                                                          
Department of Labor & Workforce Development                                                                                     
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the  hearing of HB 121, testified and                                                             
answered questions.                                                                                                             
SAM KITO, III                                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the  hearing of HB 121, testified and                                                             
answered questions.                                                                                                             
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
1:04:32 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to  order at 1:04 p.m.  Representatives Claman, Reinbold,                                                               
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Eastman,  and Fansler, were present                                                               
at the call to order.                                                                                                           
          HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS                                                                       
1:05:16 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 20, "An  Act relating to  marriage solemnization;                                                               
and  authorizing  elected  public   officials  in  the  state  to                                                               
solemnize marriages."                                                                                                           
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that the  committee would discuss  and vote                                                               
on the remaining  amendments.  He reminded the  committee, at the                                                               
conclusion  of the  meeting  on  3/6/17, there  was  a 5:00  p.m.                                                               
deadline for  amendments, and the  rule applied equally  to every                                                               
member.     He  added  that  Representative   Reinbold  submitted                                                               
amendments well  after 5:00  p.m. yesterday, and  in his  role as                                                               
chair  he  did  not  accept those  amendments  for  consideration                                                               
CHAIR  CLAMAN passed  the gavel  to  Vice Chair  Fansler for  the                                                               
duration of the hearing of HB 20.                                                                                               
1:06:13 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE  CHAIR  FANSLER  recapped  that  Amendment  1  was  adopted,                                                               
Amendments 2-9 failed.                                                                                                          
1:06:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  10, Version 30-                                                               
LS0242\D.10, which read as follows:                                                                                             
     Page 1, line 13, following "congregation;":                                                                            
          Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                     
     obligates a religious organization or congregation to                                                                  
     solemnize a marriage;"                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
1:06:51 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that  Amendment 10 adds to those                                                               
currently  not  required to  solemnize  a  marriage "a  religious                                                               
organization or a congregation."                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  pointed out  that  this  language was  covered  by                                                               
adopted Amendment 1.                                                                                                            
1:07:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  permission  from  the sponsor  to                                                               
allow friendly Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.                                                                              
1:07:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was amenable to the amendments.                                                                  
CHAIR CLAMAN objected  to adding Amendments 1 and  2 to Amendment                                                               
10  as  they were  the  exact  amendments  provided late  to  his                                                               
office.    He  reminded  the  committee  that  it  has  amendment                                                               
deadlines and these amendments should not be accepted.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  advised that these were  "his amendments                                                               
originally" so it is germane "to  him," and germane to the topic.                                                               
Previously, members  were allowed  to offer  friendly amendments,                                                               
and she  asked whether this  is a  new process where  members are                                                               
not allowed to amend amendments.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  pointed out that  Representative Reinbold                                                               
had not offered a reason for adding the amendments.                                                                             
1:09:25 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN called  a point of order.  He  stated that "friendly                                                               
amendment" is a  topic that is periodically discussed  and it has                                                               
an informal meaning.    He continued that he  didn't think [these                                                               
were] friendly  amendments.   He continued that  it is  either an                                                               
amendment that gets adopted or it doesn't get adopted.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  reiterated  that  the  amendments  were                                                               
germane and critical to the discussion  of this bill.  She stated                                                               
that  if she  was not  allowed to  speak to  the amendments,  she                                                               
wanted to speak to the topic.                                                                                                   
1:10:10 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE  CHAIR FANSLER  advised Representative  Eastman that  in the                                                               
event he would  like these to be friendly  amendments, they would                                                               
be included, and if not,  the committee would attend to Amendment                                                               
10 as written.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he believes they are.                                                                          
1:10:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  spoke to the  point of order, and  said that                                                               
Amendment 4 was withdrawn.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  explained   that  the  amendments  were                                                               
related to Version J, and not Version D.                                                                                        
1:11:28 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE  CHAIR FANSLER  advised the  committee that  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Amendment 10 -  J.4, was not quite identical to  Amendment 4, but                                                               
it was similar, and he asked for copies of the amendments.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether Chair  Claman's  point  of                                                               
order had been  ruled on as to whether  the "friendly" amendments                                                               
were out of order.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said "And he  is the chair, and  he said                                                               
that he was accepting them under  the provision, so the point was                                                               
made by who actually has the gavel and agreed to accept them."                                                                  
1:12:55 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that he accepted Amendment 1 to                                                                        
Amendment 10, Version 30-LS0242\J.4, which read as follows:                                                                     
     Page 1, lines 5 - 6 of the amendment:                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(c) A person authorized to solemnize a marriage                                                                      
     under (a)  of this  section may  refuse to  solemnize a                                                                    
     marriage  for  any  reason, including  for  reasons  of                                                                    
     religious scruple or conscience.""                                                                                         
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that he accepted Amendment 2 to                                                                        
Amendment 10, Version 30-LS0242\J.5, which read as follows:                                                                     
     Page 2, lines 1 - 4:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(4)  by an individual holding an elective                                                                   
     public office in the state.                                                                                            
        *  Sec. 2.  AS 25.05.261  is amended  by adding  new                                                                  
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
          (c)  A person authorized to solemnize a marriage                                                                      
     under  (a)  of  this   section  may,  for  any  reason,                                                                    
     including   for  reasons   of   religious  scruple   or                                                                    
     conscience, refuse to                                                                                                      
               (1)  solemnize a marriage; or                                                                                    
               (2)  provide services, accommodations,                                                                           
     facilities, goods, or privileges  for a purpose related                                                                    
     to the  solemnization, formation,  or celebration  of a                                                                    
          (d)  A person permitted to solemnize a marriage                                                                       
     under (a)  of this section  is not subject  to criminal                                                                    
     or  civil   liability  for  refusing  to   solemnize  a                                                                    
     marriage    or    refusing   to    provide    services,                                                                    
     accommodations, facilities, goods,  or privileges for a                                                                    
     purpose  related to  the  solemnization, formation,  or                                                                    
     celebration of a marriage.                                                                                                 
          (e)  The state or a municipality may not penalize                                                                     
     a  person  who is  permitted  to  solemnize a  marriage                                                                    
     under (a) of  this section for refusing  to solemnize a                                                                    
     marriage    or    refusing   to    provide    services,                                                                    
     accommodations, facilities, goods,  or privileges for a                                                                    
     purpose  related to  the  solemnization, formation,  or                                                                    
     celebration   of  a   marriage.  In   this  subsection,                                                                    
     "penalize" means to take an  action affecting a benefit                                                                    
     or  privilege   guaranteed  to   the  person   by  law,                                                                    
        including a tax exemption or state or municipal                                                                         
     contract, grant, or license."                                                                                              
     Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                           
1:12:57 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER ruled that  Amendment 10 now  encompassed two                                                               
amendments  [Versions 30-LS0242\J.4  and  J.5]  and the  original                                                               
Amendment 10 [Version 30-LS0242\D.10] together.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that he  did withdraw  Amendment 4                                                               
earlier  and  the  committee  did  not take  a  position  on  it;                                                               
therefore, it is still an open question for the committee.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD said  she  was trying  to  send a  clear                                                               
message by  amending this  amendment to  prevent problems  in the                                                               
courts.  She  related that it had become a  huge issue across the                                                               
nation and she was trying to  protect the right of conscience for                                                               
judges,  atheists,  business  owners,   and  such.    [She  began                                                               
paraphrasing from: "Here it is:  the Complete catalogue of 'same-                                                               
sex  marriage' violations  of faith"  into the  record, found  at                                                               
1:16:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN called  a  point of  order.   He  pointed out  that                                                               
Representative Reinbold  was making  reference to  something that                                                               
has nothing to do with this bill.                                                                                               
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER agreed, and he  asked Representative Reinbold                                                               
to please stick  to the facts of the bill  and amendments, rather                                                               
than other scenarios.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed,  and she said it  was 100 percent                                                               
germane  because  Amendment  10  says,  and  she  paraphrased  as                                                               
follows:  "A  person authorized  to  solemnize  marriage of  this                                                               
section  may  refuse  to  solemnize   marriage  for  any  reason,                                                               
including  reasons  of religious  scruple  or  conscience."   She                                                               
stated  that  this  does  apply   to  judges,  and  in  addition,                                                               
Amendment 2 to Amendment 10 talks ...                                                                                           
1:17:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN called  a point  of  order.   He said  he does  not                                                               
believe  [what  Representative  Reinbold was  paraphrasing]  fits                                                               
within the  "germaneness definition"  in terms  of Representative                                                               
Eastman's  Amendment 10.   He  said  that Representative  Eastman                                                               
offered  the  opinion  that  Amendment  10  was  consistent  with                                                               
Amendments 1  and 2 to Amendment  10, except that Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment 10  was far  broader and  covered topics  the committee                                                               
previously  rejected  in  amendments  offered  by  Representative                                                               
Eastman.  Therefore, he related,  Amendment 1 to Amendment 10 was                                                               
not germane or consistent with Amendment  10, and there was not a                                                               
basis to find it was a friendly amendment.                                                                                      
CHAIR  CLAMAN  stated he  was  making  the  same point  of  order                                                               
objection with regard to Amendment  2 to Amendment 10, because it                                                               
related to elected  public officials and it was trying  to do the                                                               
same  thing  as  [withdrawn]  Amendment 4.    He  continued  that                                                               
Amendment 10  addresses a narrow  and specific point in  the bill                                                               
related to  religious organizations.  Therefore,  he pointed out,                                                               
to then  expand it by  either Amendments 1  or 2 to  Amendment 10                                                               
was not  germane and well beyond  the scope of Amendment  10.  He                                                               
asked  Vice  Chair  Fansler  to reconsider  his  decision  as  to                                                               
whether  these would  be appropriate  amendments given  the prior                                                               
actions of this committee and the narrow focus of Amendment 10.                                                                 
1:19:05 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 1:19 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.                                                                       
1:21:01 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  ruled that with regard to the  point of order                                                               
from Chair  Claman, it should  be duly  noted on the  record that                                                               
despite the  germaneness issue, he  would allow the  committee to                                                               
continue hearing [Amendment 10] which was now all one amendment.                                                                
1:21:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  related  she  would  like  to  continue                                                               
reading [from  "Here it is:  the Complete catalogue  of 'same-sex                                                               
marriage' violations of  faith"] and said it  speaks to Amendment                                                               
2 to Amendment 10, of which impacts different businesses.                                                                       
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of  order.  He said that reference to                                                               
businesses is  far outside the  scope of this  particular statute                                                               
and  bill and  that the  entire reference  to businesses  was not                                                               
germane to Amendment 10, or to CSHB 20, Version J.                                                                              
VICE   CHAIR   FANSLER   said  "absolutely,"   and   ruled   that                                                               
Representative Reinbold  speak strictly  to what  is in  front of                                                               
the committee, and wrap up.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  stressed that  she needs  to be  able to                                                               
express why this is important,  and that it is absolutely germane                                                               
to  solemnization of  marriage.    The bill  is  titled, "An  Act                                                               
relating  to  marriage  solemnization;  and  authorizing  elected                                                               
public officials in  the state to solemnize  marriages," of which                                                               
she described as a broad title.                                                                                                 
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER pointed out that  businesses cannot solemnize                                                               
marriages  under  this Act,  and  asked  that  she speak  to  her                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to  Amendment 2 to Amendment 10,                                                               
page 1, lines 8-9, which read as follows:                                                                                       
                    (2) provide services, accommodations,                                                                       
     facilities, goods, or privileges  for a purpose related                                                                    
     to the  solemnization, formation,  or celebration  of a                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  related that  it  is  germane, and  she                                                               
doesn't  appreciate  being  shut  out  of  the  process  Alaska's                                                               
businesses  will  be affected.    She  continued that  whether  a                                                               
person is atheist,  Christian, or Islamic, they  will be affected                                                               
by this, and  it is important to put on  the record why Amendment                                                               
2 to Amendment 10 needs to be adopted, she said.                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER thanked  Representative Reinbold  and advised                                                               
that she had just done that very well.                                                                                          
1:23:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN remarked  that  he had  already made  his                                                               
case as to why Amendment 10 was a good amendment.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked whether  the committee  was amending                                                               
Amendment 10 with Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.                                                                           
1:24:05 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
1:24:45 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER requested a  roll call vote on  Amendment 10,                                                               
which included Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.                                                                              
1:24:52 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold voted in favor of  the adoption of amended Amendment 10.                                                               
Representatives  Kreiss-Tomkins,   LeDoux,  Fansler,   Kopp,  and                                                               
Claman voted against it.   Therefore, amended Amendment 10 failed                                                               
to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                                 
1:25:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   moved  to   adopt  Amendment   11,  30-                                                               
LS0242\D.5, which read as follows:                                                                                              
     Page 2, lines 7 - 9:                                                                                                       
          Delete "minister, priest, or rabbi of a church or                                                                     
     congregation in the state, [OR] a judicial officer, a                                                              
      [OR] marriage commissioner, or an individual holding                                                                  
     an elective public office in the state"                                                                                
          Insert "person authorized to solemnize marriages                                                                  
     in the state under AS 25.05.261(a) [MINISTER, PRIEST,                                                                  
     OR RABBI OF A CHURCH OR CONGREGATION IN THE STATE OR A                                                                     
     JUDICIAL OFFICER OR MARRIAGE COMMISSIONER]"                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  explained that Amendment 11  relates to a                                                               
discrepancy  in current  statute, and  that the  bill was  broken                                                               
into  two sections,  as  follows:   Section  1 [AS  25.05.261(a)]                                                               
contains  a  list of  the  various  people allowed  to  solemnize                                                               
marriage; and Sec.  2 [AS 25.05.281] contains a  second list that                                                               
includes  most,  but  not  all   of  the  individuals  and  items                                                               
contained in  Section 1.  He  referred to AS 25.05.281,  and said                                                               
that  when considering  previous discussions,  the committee  can                                                               
quickly  identify that  "we've left  out"  principal officers  or                                                               
elders  of   recognized  churches  or  congregations,   and  also                                                               
commissioned officers of  the Salvation Army.   He commented that                                                               
while flying  back to  Juneau he sat  next to  three commissioned                                                               
officers of the Salvation Army  who, in response to his question,                                                               
responded  that they  solemnize  marriages on  a fairly  frequent                                                               
basis.   Currently, he  said, officers of  the Salvation  Army do                                                               
not  receive  the same  treatment  contained  within Sec.  2,  of                                                               
Version  J.   He  explained  that it  deals  specifically with  a                                                               
situation  wherein a  couple was  married by  someone the  couple                                                               
believed was a  priest, rabbi, or elected  official, the marriage                                                               
was  consummated and  later it  turned  out that  the person  who                                                               
married  them was  either misinformed  about  their authority  to                                                               
perform  marriages,  or lied  about  it.    In either  case,  the                                                               
statute said "We acted in good  faith when we went to that person                                                               
or congregation and  got married, and that marriage  is valid for                                                               
purposes  of law."   He  related  that he  could not  think of  a                                                               
reason  why  the committee  would  make  that  be the  case  with                                                               
ministers, priests,  and rabbis, but  exclude those who,  in good                                                               
faith, go  to a commissioned officer  of the Salvation Army.   He                                                               
reminded the  committee that  in many villages,  that may  be the                                                               
only person  people can go  to, which  is probably why  they were                                                               
added to the  list in the first place.   Certainly, he said, that                                                               
marriage ought to be every bit as valid as any other marriage.                                                                  
1:29:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection.                                                                                            
1:29:55 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  commented   that  Representative   Eastman                                                               
identified  a more  elegant and  concise way  to pull  in all  of                                                               
those persons authorized to solemnize  marriages.  It does appear                                                               
to be an  oversight that the Salvation Army was  left off, and it                                                               
does make  the statute's intent more  clear and easier for  a lay                                                               
person to understand, he remarked.                                                                                              
1:31:04 PM                                                                                                                    
LINDA BRUCE,  Attorney, Legislative Legal and  Research Services,                                                               
Legislative Affairs  Agency, Alaska  State Legislature,  said she                                                               
was available for questions.                                                                                                    
1:31:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked why  classes of  people were                                                               
inadvertently  left out  of  the statute  of  which Amendment  11                                                               
MS. BRUCE  explained that the  legislative history on  this topic                                                               
is vague; however,  she could speak briefly on the  history of AS                                                               
25.05.281.    She explained  that  the  provisions had  not  been                                                               
amended since  their adoption in  1963, and she could  not locate                                                               
any  documents   addressing  the   intent  of   the  legislature.                                                               
However, she pointed out, commissioned  officers of the Salvation                                                               
Army  were  first authorized  to  solemnize  marriages under  the                                                               
Territorial  Laws  of Alaska,  in  1929,  and  it is  similar  to                                                               
current statute under AS 25.05.281.                                                                                             
1:32:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE    KREISS-TOMKINS   said    he   concurred    with                                                               
Representative Kopp in that it was good clean-up.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that  Amendment 11  is befitting                                                               
the   individual   with  whom   this   room   was  named   after.                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg  is  probably  looking  down  upon  the                                                               
committee and appreciating Representative Eastman, she related.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered  that she likes the  intent as it                                                               
covers  much of  what "we've  been trying  to do  with all  these                                                               
other amendments."                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection.                                                                           
There being no further objection, Amendment 11 was adopted.                                                                     
1:33:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   moved  to   adopt  Amendment   12,  30-                                                               
LS0242\D.13, which read as follows:                                                                                             
     Page 2, following line 11:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 3. AS 25.05.311 is amended to read:                                                                         
          Sec. 25.05.311. Marriage without solemnization. A                                                                   
     marriage  contracted  after  January 1, 1964,  is  void                                                                    
     unless the marriage has been  solemnized as provided in                                                                    
     this chapter.  [IF THE PARTIES  TO A MARRIAGE  VOID FOR                                                                    
     FAILURE   TO  SOLEMNIZE   THE  MARRIAGE   VALIDATE  THE                                                                    
     MARRIAGE  BY COMPLYING  WITH THE  REQUIREMENTS OF  THIS                                                                    
     CHAPTER,   THE  ISSUE   OF   THE   VOID  MARRIAGE   ARE                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN paraphrased  AS  25.05.311,  and read  as                                                               
     If  the  parties to  a  marriage  void for  failure  to                                                                    
     solemnize  the   marriage  validate  the   marriage  by                                                                    
      complying with the requirements of this chapter, the                                                                      
     issue of the void marriage are legitimate.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised  that, under certain circumstances                                                               
the children from a marriage  are legitimate in the state's eyes.                                                               
The  legislative history  indicates  that this  language has  not                                                               
been changed  since January  1, 1964,  and in  those days  it was                                                               
thought appropriate for the state to  have a definition of what a                                                               
legitimate and illegitimate  child was.  He opined  that over the                                                               
passage of  time, however, the  state has  come to see  that that                                                               
was not  necessarily a responsibility  of the state.   Currently,                                                               
he pointed out,  the state has other laws  dealing with paternity                                                               
at great  length, such as, options  for DNA testing that  was not                                                               
available  in  1964.   Amendment  12  removes this  language  and                                                               
Legislative Legal  and Research  Services advised that  this will                                                               
not deprive anyone of their inheritance and such, he said.                                                                      
1:35:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  Amendment 12,  page 1,  line 8,                                                               
and suggested changing  the word from "issue" to  "children."  In                                                               
that manner,  he pointed  out, the entire  reading of  it becomes                                                               
apparent that  the provision was  saying that children of  a void                                                               
marriage are legitimate, rather than the issue.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms.  Bruce whether  she read                                                               
"issue" in the same manner as Representative Kopp.                                                                              
1:36:51 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE  responded that she  agrees with  Representative Kopp's                                                               
suggestion that "issue" does mean "children."                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  Ms.   Bruce,  in  the  event  this                                                               
amendment was  adopted and removed  the bracketed  language, what                                                               
effect, if any, would this have on anything legal.                                                                              
1:37:31 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE answered that the  legitimation in this context was the                                                               
process of  establishing that a  putative parent was  the child's                                                               
biological parent.   Under AS 25.20.050, it  provides the process                                                               
for   determining  "legitimation,"   but  it   essentially  means                                                               
determining that a putative parent  was a biological parent.  She                                                               
continued  that  the provision  provides  that  a child  born  to                                                               
parents not  legally married, is legitimated  and considered heir                                                               
of the putative parent when  the parents subsequently get married                                                               
legally.  She explained that  it is covered under another statute                                                               
and placing it  under AS 25.05.311 may clarify the  issue, but it                                                               
was covered under another provision of law.                                                                                     
1:38:37 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX commented  that it  sounds like  taking it                                                               
out might muddy the issue.                                                                                                      
MS.  BRUCE responded  that  it  is possible  this  may confuse  a                                                               
court, but it  is hard to say  how a court would  consider it due                                                               
to the  other statute.   In  the event  there was  an established                                                               
record with  legislative intent  on this section  it may  help to                                                               
clarify, she opined.                                                                                                            
1:39:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  queried whether Ms. Bruce  would recommend                                                               
that rather than  taking it out now, to possibly  flag it for the                                                               
revisor's cleanup work.                                                                                                         
MS.  BRUCE   answered  that   this  may   be  interpreted   as  a                                                               
clarification  of another  statute rather  than cleanup,  but she                                                               
would have to speak with the revisor on that issue.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Ms.  Bruce to advise the committee,                                                               
in her own words, what this amendment does.                                                                                     
MS.  BRUCE replied  that "this  amendment removes  the provision"                                                               
that  if  a  marriage  was  determined to  be  void  because  the                                                               
marriage was  not solemnized correctly  under this  chapter, then                                                               
the children of  that marriage were considered  legitimate if the                                                               
marriage was subsequently made legally binding.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  surmised that all it  does is legitimize                                                               
children regardless of whether a marriage is void or not.                                                                       
MS. BRUCE clarified  that it is not that  it legitimizes children                                                               
whether the marriage was void or  not.  Rather, she explained, it                                                               
provides  that  if  a  marriage  was void  due  to  an  incorrect                                                               
solemnization of the  marriage, and if children had  been born to                                                               
that  union,  at the  time  the  marriage was  subsequently  made                                                               
legally  binding,  those  children   were  legitimated  for  both                                                               
1:42:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   asked  whether  there  would   be  any                                                               
intended  or   unintended  consequences  to,  for   example,  the                                                               
Department  of  Health  and  Social  Services,  another  statute,                                                               
entitlement programs,  or the budget,  or whether it  was "pretty                                                               
MS.  BRUCE responded  that she  was not  aware of  any unintended                                                               
consequences.  Although, if this  provision was removed, there is                                                               
the possibility that  the court may interpret  that children from                                                               
that union were  not legitimate; however, since  there is another                                                               
provision of  law that performs  a similar function,  she opined,                                                               
it is unlikely.                                                                                                                 
1:43:22 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  Ms.  Bruce, in  her legal  opinion,                                                               
whether  the provision  should be  removed,  or left  it in,  and                                                               
which language would more precise.                                                                                              
MS.  BRUCE responded  that without  knowing more  about how  this                                                               
provision had been  interpreted in practice, said  that she could                                                               
not say  whether judges  or individuals  actually relied  on this                                                               
provision.  From a drafting  standpoint, she offered, it could be                                                               
removed,  but  again,  she  was  unsure based  upon  how  it  was                                                               
actually being employed in practice.                                                                                            
1:44:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  noted  that  this  issue  was  discussed                                                               
during drafting, and he elected to  leave this section in the law                                                               
dealing with  marriage without solemnization.   He explained that                                                               
the more  important part  of this provision  was that  a marriage                                                               
was legally void unless it  had been solemnized according to this                                                               
chapter.   He  reiterated Ms.  Bruce's statement  that there  are                                                               
multiple parts of the statute that  speaks to the same issue.  He                                                               
related that  there is no  reason for  the committee to  speak to                                                               
this  specific issue  here, but  if the  committee feels  that it                                                               
offers greater  clarity and the  public interest would  be served                                                               
by leaving it, he had no objection.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  said that while she  appreciates the maker                                                               
of the  amendment trying to  clarify the statute, without  a firm                                                               
legal  opinion it  would not  do something  the committee  didn't                                                               
want it to do, she felt uncomfortable changing it.                                                                              
1:46:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related  that the amendment appears                                                               
to be a  prudent course and a common sense  amendment, and that a                                                               
future  committee could  attend  to this  if  more diligence  was                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN said  he went  as  far as  he could  with                                                               
Legislative Legal and  Research Services and there was  not a lot                                                               
of other  knowledge to be had  at the moment.   He commented that                                                               
it  would  be  good  for  the   state  to  find  another  way  of                                                               
characterizing    the   importance    of   paternity,    marriage                                                               
solemnization, and so forth, as far  as inheritance and such.  He                                                               
remarked  that  he  would  like  the  state  to  move  away  from                                                               
declaring  people legitimate  or  illegitimate,  and he  withdrew                                                               
Amendment 12.                                                                                                                   
1:47:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  13, Version 30-                                                               
LS02452\J.2, which read as follows:                                                                                             
     Page 1, line 5 of the amendment, following "duty":                                                                         
          Insert "or obligation"                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6 of the amendment:                                                                                           
          Delete the second occurrence of "a"                                                                                   
          Insert "any"                                                                                                          
VICE CHAIR FANSLER objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                         
1:48:06 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.                                                                       
2:05:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   explained  that  Amendment   13  amends                                                               
Amendment 1, and makes two small  changes by adding the words "or                                                               
obligation" and  "any."   He asked  Ms. Bruce  to respond  to the                                                               
significance this amendment.                                                                                                    
2:06:51 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. BRUCE  answered that the  word "obligation"  slightly expands                                                               
what  is  accomplished  with this  amendment  because  obligation                                                               
would  include  a moral  obligation,  a  legal obligation,  or  a                                                               
commitment to do something.                                                                                                     
2:07:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  her  legal opinion  as to  whether                                                               
there is any significance in changing the word "a" to "any."                                                                    
MS.  BRUCE answered  that "any"  clarifies, for  the purposes  of                                                               
Amendment 13,  that a person  authorized to solemnize  a marriage                                                               
wouldn't  be required  or obligated  to  solemnize any  marriage.                                                               
Therefore, they could solemnize some  marriages and choose to not                                                               
solemnize others.                                                                                                               
2:08:11 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  Ms. Bruce the difference between a  duty on a                                                               
person and an obligation on a  person.  He further asked whether,                                                               
in  the manner  in which  Alaska's  courts have  applied it,  the                                                               
language "or  obligation" would change  the way the  courts would                                                               
apply something like this.                                                                                                      
MS. BRUCE  responded that she was  not aware of any  case wherein                                                               
the  courts  specifically  looked  at the  use  of  these  words;                                                               
however,  the commonly  understood  meaning  of "obligation"  was                                                               
similar  to  duty   except  it  expands  it  out   to  include  a                                                               
commitment.  The  courts look at the  commonly understood meaning                                                               
of  these words,  and it  appears  this might  broaden the  scope                                                               
slightly, she offered.                                                                                                          
CHAIR  CLAMAN surmised  that inserting  the language  "any" would                                                               
basically  indicate that,  with  this amendment,  a person  might                                                               
choose to  marry two Hindu  individuals and decline to  marry two                                                               
Baathist  individuals.   Therefore,  he  asked  whether the  word                                                               
"any" would clarify  the ability to pick and choose  who they may                                                               
elect to marry.                                                                                                                 
MS.  BRUCE opined  that a  person could  choose to  marry certain                                                               
people and not  other people; however, it is  possible that under                                                               
the  state's  antidiscrimination  statute,  at least  as  far  as                                                               
elected  officials,  if  they  were  choosing  not  to  solemnize                                                               
certain marriages  for reasons of  the persons religion  or race,                                                               
or one of  the protected groups, that would  possibly violate the                                                               
state's antidiscrimination law.                                                                                                 
2:10:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  related that  Amendment 13  adds clarity                                                               
and  equal  protection  for  all,  and  it  empowers  more  equal                                                               
protections for anyone.  She said she supports Amendment 13.                                                                    
2:11:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  the  sponsor of  the bill  whether                                                               
this amendment would be an improvement to the bill.                                                                             
2:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.                                                                       
2:12:05 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN responded  to Representative  Eastman that  he does                                                               
not object to this amendment.                                                                                                   
VICE  CHAIR  FANSLER withdrew  his  objection.   There  being  no                                                               
objection, Amendment 13 was adopted.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  returned  the   committee  to  CSHB  20,                                                               
Version J, for  further discussion.  He put forth  that there had                                                               
been a lot  of discussion on this bill and  that the members were                                                               
limited to two minutes with  their discussion directly related to                                                               
the bill, and there would then be final comments, he advised.                                                                   
2:13:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  her testimony was cut off                                                               
earlier and  she returned to  paraphrasing portions of:  "Here it                                                               
is: the  Complete catalogue of 'same-sex  marriage' violations of                                                               
faith."  She  further commented that the constitution  is at risk                                                               
by  activists, and  that  almost 250  years  of protected  rights                                                               
making Alaska  great are  being violated.   People  are receiving                                                               
civil penalties for refusing to  do things that are against their                                                               
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  said that the committee will  move forth from                                                               
there, with a  note that he sees nothing in  this bill discussing                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented the freedom  to live out ones faith                                                               
in the marketplace  is an important freedom to  protect, and this                                                               
bill has  absolutely nothing to  do with businesses.   He related                                                               
that he  appreciates Amendment 13 because  it expands protections                                                               
and  emphasizes  that the  committee  does  want to  protect  the                                                               
freedom of the  newly established class of  persons authorized to                                                               
solemnize  marriages,  elected   officials,  and  Alaska's  faith                                                               
leaders  and congregations.   The  protection of  marriage is  an                                                               
important institution  in the eyes  of the church and  the state,                                                               
and he appreciates the bill sponsor bringing the bill forward.                                                                  
2:17:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN related  that the  two items  of greatest                                                               
importance to him  are adding elective officials  to an expansive                                                               
list, and also, by merely having  elective officials on a list of                                                               
those authorized to solemnize marriages  brings cause for concern                                                               
when  someone raises  an  issue of  discrimination  in the  event                                                               
someone decides  not to  marry a particular  couple.   He pointed                                                               
out that because  that language is lingering out  there, there is                                                               
too much room for a judge to see unintended consequences.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER reminded the  committee that the bill does                                                               
not  deal  with businesses,  and  to  speak to  solemnization  of                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  described CSHB  20  as  a good  bill,  it                                                               
accomplishes the original purpose of  the sponsor to add elective                                                               
officials  to the  group of  people solemnizing  a marriage,  and                                                               
through  the   committee  and   amendment  process   it  enhanced                                                               
protections  given  to the  faith  community  to determine  which                                                               
marriages to solemnize.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP informed that  committee that, yesterday, the                                                               
Wyoming  Supreme Court  overruled  the  Wyoming Judicial  Conduct                                                               
Board and reinstated Judge Ruth Neely.   The court ruled that the                                                               
judge  was  able to  express  her  personal  opinion and  not  be                                                               
removed from the bench, he pointed out.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   argued  that  the  bill   does  impact                                                               
businesses because  some elected officials own  businesses and it                                                               
can affect their  churches.  She said she is  troubled because as                                                               
elected officials, "we're now being asked  to not have to go down                                                               
to the courthouse and get a  -- the bureaucracy in going down and                                                               
doing the  paperwork and paying our  $25 fee -- we're  being held                                                               
to a  different standard  than maybe the  average citizen."   She                                                               
asked the  sponsor of the  bill whether  it was his  intention to                                                               
protect everyone equally and protect  all branches of government,                                                               
all citizens,  with the  right to  refuse based  on the  right of                                                               
conscience or for any religious scruple.                                                                                        
2:24:08 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.                                                                       
2:27:55 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER asked  whether there  were further  final                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered that this bill  is an improvement                                                               
over the bill that arrived  from the House State Affairs Standing                                                               
Committee, and  he acknowledged  all of the  hard work  that went                                                               
into it.                                                                                                                        
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER thanked  the committee for  its hard  work on                                                               
the bill  and noted that  it is good to  see there are  times the                                                               
members can  all agree.   It is also good  to debate and  look at                                                               
the issues  from all  sides, and he  looks forward  to supporting                                                               
this bill as it moves forward, he commented.                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  thanked the  committee for taking  its time  on the                                                               
bill and  going into great depth,  and that as a  product of that                                                               
depth the  bill was improved.   He related that in  the end, this                                                               
bill is not  about businesses, it's about one  basic thing, which                                                               
is that elected public officials need  to go get a $25 license to                                                               
marry people.                                                                                                                   
2:30:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  moved to  report CSHB  20(STA) out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying  fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection,  CSHB                                                               
20(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                      
VICE CHAIR FANSLER returned the gavel to CHAIR CLAMAN.]                                                                         
         HB 121-OCC. HEALTH AND SAFETY CIVIL PENALTIES                                                                      
2:31:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  121, "An Act relating to  occupational safety and                                                               
health  enforcement penalties;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
2:31:51 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
2:32:49 PM                                                                                                                    
BIANCA CARPENETTI,  Staff, Representative  Sam Kito,  III, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, advised that the  legislation is a House Labor                                                               
and Commerce Standing  Committee by request of  the Department of                                                               
Labor &  Workforce Development (DLWD).   She  briefly paraphrased                                                               
the following:                                                                                                                  
     House Bill 121 brings  Alaska's Occupational Safety and                                                                    
     Health (AKOSH) state plan  into compliance with federal                                                                    
     requirements,   ensuring   continued  eligibility   for                                                                    
     federal  grant funds  and  helping  to protect  workers                                                                    
     from workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.                                                                        
2:34:01 PM                                                                                                                    
DEBORAH KELLY, Director, Division of Labor Standards and Safety,                                                                
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, paraphrased her                                                                    
written testimony as follows:                                                                                                   
     I'm sure  you are all familiar  with OSHA [Occupational                                                                    
     Safety  and  Health   Administration].    Well,  Alaska                                                                    
     Occupational Safety  and Health or (AKOSH)  is Alaska's                                                                    
     state  plan.    This  means  that  Alaska  Occupational                                                                    
     Safety  and  Health  receives  federal  grants  and  is                                                                    
     responsible for  the safety  and health  standards that                                                                    
     protect almost all Alaskan workers.                                                                                        
     ... A  state plan  such as  AKOSH must  be at  least as                                                                    
     effective   as  federal   OSHA,  so   Alaska's  program                                                                    
     develops  and implements  safety  and health  standards                                                                    
     that fit  Alaska's unique environment using  input from                                                                    
     Alaskan industries,  workers, and the public.   Federal                                                                    
     standards  are much  less  responsive  to local  needs.                                                                    
     Alaska's  program   also  provides   free  consultation                                                                    
     services  to  employers  with   an  emphasis  on  small                                                                    
     employers,  helping them  to  understand the  standards                                                                    
     and  implement  them  to  keep  their  employees  safe.                                                                    
     AKOSH  inspects all  private and  public workplaces  in                                                                    
     Alaska, with a few federal exceptions.                                                                                     
2:35:21 PM                                                                                                                    
     If, during the course of  an inspection, an employer is                                                                    
     found violating a safety or  health standard, AKOSH may                                                                    
     issue  a   citation  to  the  employer   that  includes                                                                    
     penalties.   The  maximum  penalties,  and one  minimum                                                                    
     penalty,  that AKOSH  may access  for various  types of                                                                    
     violations are set in Alaska's  statutes.  Now, maximum                                                                    
     penalties mean just that, the  maximums.  These are the                                                                    
     amounts  reserved for  the  most  egregious and  severe                                                                    
     cases.   The actual  penalties accessed  are calculated                                                                    
     based   on   numerous   factors  beginning   with   the                                                                    
     probability   of   an   injury  or   illness   actually                                                                    
     occurring, and  the severity of  the injury  or illness                                                                    
     that  could occur.   After  that, the  penalties reduce                                                                    
     based  on   numerous  factors.    The   biggest  single                                                                    
     reduction factor is business  size, small employers see                                                                    
     a standard  reduction of  60 percent  and even  more in                                                                    
     some cases.  Penalties are  also reduced for good faith                                                                    
     efforts  on the  part  of the  employer  to keep  their                                                                    
     employees safe,  as well as  the employer's  history of                                                                    
     violations  with AKOSH.   Penalties  can be,  and often                                                                    
     are,  reduced up  to 100  percent.   To illustrate  the                                                                    
     difference  between  the  statutory maximums  and  what                                                                    
     employers  actually pay,  we looked  at the  difference                                                                    
     between penalties collected in  FY2016, and the maximum                                                                    
     amount  that   AKOSH  could   have  assessed   for  all                                                                    
     violations.   So,  for FY16  --  2016, AKOSH  collected                                                                    
     roughly  6 percent  of the  statutory  maximum for  the                                                                    
     violations  cited.    This  is not  a  fluke,  it  just                                                                    
     reflects  the  built-in  process  that  protects  small                                                                    
     businesses, and protects the  majority of employers who                                                                    
     hard  to  keep  their  employees safe.    So,  in  2015                                                                    
     Congress  passed  an  Act requiring  many  agencies  to                                                                    
     adjust penalties for inflation  going back to 1990, and                                                                    
     then to continue to adjust  those penalties yearly with                                                                    
     the  consumer price  index.   OSHA complied  and raised                                                                    
     their penalties  in July of  last year, Alaska  has six                                                                    
     months  to come  into compliance  with federal  changes                                                                    
     like these,  and as of January  1, 2017, we are  out of                                                                    
     compliance.   So why  does this matter?   A  failure to                                                                    
     comply  will  risk  most  of the  over  $2  million  in                                                                    
     federal  grant   funds  we  receive  every   year,  and                                                                    
     eventually   will   risk    a   federal   takeover   of                                                                    
     jurisdiction.   This  means federal  OSHA will  come in                                                                    
     and  enforce the  higher  penalty  amounts anyway,  the                                                                    
     over $1  million in estimated yearly  penalties that we                                                                    
     will  bring  in  will  go  to  the  federal  government                                                                    
     instead of to the state  general fund.  Businesses will                                                                    
     face the  burden of out-of-state proceedings  when they                                                                    
     disagree with  citations, and we  will lose  the safety                                                                    
     and health standards developed  locally to fit Alaska's                                                                    
     unique conditions,  such as logging,  oil and  gas, and                                                                    
     temporary   labor  camp   standards.     And,   Alaskan                                                                    
     businesses  will  lose the  high  level  of input  they                                                                    
     currently have in the development  of safety and health                                                                    
     standards.  Loss of state  jurisdiction would also mean                                                                    
     that state  and local  government employees  would lose                                                                    
     their work  -- workplace safety and  health protections                                                                    
     since  federal OSHA  does  not  have jurisdiction  over                                                                    
     those public employees.                                                                                                    
2:38:49 PM                                                                                                                    
     The fact  is that local  enforcement works.   AKOSH has                                                                    
     concentrated  on  the  transportation  and  warehousing                                                                    
     industry which saw  over an 18 percent  decline in lost                                                                    
     time  injury rates  last  year.   Our  emphasis in  the                                                                    
     construction  industry has  also  paid  off, lost  time                                                                    
     industry  -- injuries  in that  industry  fell over  32                                                                    
     percent  last  year.   The  10  year averages  for  our                                                                    
     emphasis industries show a  long-term decline in injury                                                                    
     and illness  rates.  And,  in fact, lost  time injuries                                                                    
     and  illnesses  for   working  Alaskans,  overall,  has                                                                    
     fallen by  over 50 percent in  the last 10 years.   The                                                                    
     payoff  is huge  for  businesses who  save on  workers'                                                                    
     compensation costs,  and for  families and  workers who                                                                    
     get to go home safe every day.                                                                                             
     House Bill 121, is a  bill to bring Alaska Occupational                                                                    
     Safety and  Health in  compliance.   No more,  no less.                                                                    
     The  bill   requires  the   Department  of   Labor  and                                                                    
     Workforce Development to  adopt maximum penalty amounts                                                                    
     by  regulation   and  limits   those  amounts   to  the                                                                    
     corresponding federal amounts  for each violation type.                                                                    
     This  simply  allows  the  department  to  comply  with                                                                    
     federal law and stay compliant  -- in compliance as the                                                                    
     consumer price index  adjusts from year to  year.  This                                                                    
     will preserve  our state  plan and  ensure that  we can                                                                    
     continue in  our effort to reduce  injuries, illnesses,                                                                    
     and fatalities for Alaskan workers.                                                                                        
2:40:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   surmised  that  this   federal  compliance                                                               
request  was asked  of all  50 states  to stay  current with  the                                                               
federal penalty  schedule.  He  asked whether Alaska  must comply                                                               
by law.                                                                                                                         
MS. KELLY responded that there are 26 state plans, including                                                                    
Porto Rico and perhaps one other territory.  She advised that                                                                   
the  federal   jurisdiction  states  had  already   raised  their                                                               
penalties,  and the  26 state  plans  are required  to come  into                                                               
compliance as  a condition of their  state plan, which was  a law                                                               
passed in 2015.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP surmised  that by  not adopting  the updated                                                               
schedule, Alaska would then fall under federal jurisdiction.                                                                    
MS.  KELLY answered  that the  failure to  at least  maintain the                                                               
same  penalties as  the federal  OSHA would  result in  a federal                                                               
jurisdictional takeover,  and many  states are dealing  with that                                                               
now.  Although,  she explained, as long as  Alaska makes positive                                                               
progress  toward  adopting  the  federal penalties,  it  will  be                                                               
recognized because the legislative process does take time.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  pointed   out   that   Alaska  has   AKOSH                                                               
regardless, and asked "Do we do  business with the devil we know,                                                               
or the devil we don't -- with state employees or with the feds?"                                                                
MS. KELLY responded that this  issue was debated around 1999, and                                                               
many local  businesses and industry  representatives came  out to                                                               
support the Alaska plan.  Ms.  Kelly said she would paraphrased a                                                               
quote  from a  representative of  the  industry at  that time  as                                                               
follows: "AKOSH may  be SOB's, at least they  are Alaskan SOB's."                                                               
She  remarked "And,  that's a  fact,"  people can  talk with  the                                                               
division   on  developing   standards  that   work  for   Alaskan                                                               
industries and Alaskan businesses.                                                                                              
2:43:55 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX surmised  that  in the  event the  federal                                                               
government  takes over,  Alaskan residents  would be  working for                                                               
the federal  government and administration  and wouldn't  be "our                                                               
SOB's?"   She asked the amount  of money the state  would save by                                                               
calling  the federal  government's  bluff and  letting them  have                                                               
MS. KELLY agreed  that on site compliance  officers under federal                                                               
jurisdiction  would   be  Alaskan   residents,  but   the  people                                                               
overseeing those residents  would not be Alaskans.   In the event                                                               
an  employer appealed  a  citation  it would  not  be an  Alaskan                                                               
process as it  would take place with an  administrative law judge                                                               
out-of-state.   More  importantly,  she  explained, Alaska  would                                                               
lose numerous local  and state standards specific to  Alaska.  In                                                               
response to the  amount of money Alaska would save,  she said she                                                               
would perform research and get back to the committee.                                                                           
2:45:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SAM  KITO,  III, Alaska  State  Legislature,  added that  another                                                               
dynamic  to consider  is that  Alaska could  not expect  that the                                                               
federal government  would open an  office in Alaska.   Therefore,                                                               
it is  likely that the  Alaska office of Occupational  Safety and                                                               
Health  would not  be  managed by  Alaskan  residents, and  would                                                               
possibly be out  of San Francisco or Seattle  because the federal                                                               
government was  also experiencing  budgetary constraints.   Also,                                                               
in the event the legislature  lets the Alaska Occupational Safety                                                               
and Health  revert to the  federal government, Alaska  would lose                                                               
the protections it currently has  for state employees not covered                                                               
under a federal plan.                                                                                                           
2:47:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  asked whether  it is  true the  fees are                                                               
being removed from statute and put into regulations.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE KITO  responded that HB 121  allows the Department                                                               
of Labor & Workforce Development  to have the statutory authority                                                               
to  produce regulations  allowing continued  compliance with  the                                                               
federal  government's  requirements,  of which  possibly  changes                                                               
annually.  He opined that  probably the legislature does not want                                                               
to come  back here  and establish  those maximum  standards every                                                               
year because  they are indexed  to inflation.   In the  event the                                                               
legislature allows  the department  the regulatory  authority, it                                                               
can  keep  up  with  the federal  changes  with  regulations,  as                                                               
opposed  to  coming  back  to  the  legislature  every  year,  he                                                               
2:48:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered that "where  the rub hits with me                                                               
is  I don't  want  any --  any less  authority"  and this  shifts                                                               
authority from the legislature to  the executive branch "that has                                                               
a whole  lot of power." and  that she is a  local control person.                                                               
She then asked whether that was his understanding.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  KITO answered  that that  was his  understanding.                                                               
As  a  sitting legislator,  he  pointed  out, there  are  various                                                               
concerns as  to whether or  not to put automatic  increments into                                                               
state law, except in this  case, the federal government does have                                                               
an automatic increment  and this does take control  away from the                                                               
legislature  to adjust  every year.   He  asked whether  this was                                                               
something the legislature  really wants to deal  with every year,                                                               
given it has  the budget and such to deal  with.  Statutorily, he                                                               
acknowledged,  he does  not know  of another  way to  effectively                                                               
deal  with   the  department   meeting  compliance,   unless  the                                                               
legislature goes in  and far exceeds the maximums  of the federal                                                               
government in  the hopes it wouldn't  catch up with Alaska  for a                                                               
few years  and allow  the department to  work below  that number.                                                               
He  described  that  it  was  sloppy  because  it  establishes  a                                                               
standard that  a legislature in two  to four years down  the road                                                               
may have  forgotten about,  thereby, leaving  a number  out there                                                               
that people may not change, and  possibly may not remember why it                                                               
was  established.   He expressed  that it  is important,  in this                                                               
situation, to allow the department that flexibility.                                                                            
2:51:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD   offered  concern   about   constantly                                                               
changing fees and yielding to  the federal government rather than                                                               
keeping  things  local.    She   offered  further  concern  about                                                               
increasing  penalties and  how it  would  impact businesses  when                                                               
Alaska was in a recession.                                                                                                      
2:52:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. KELLY responded to Representative Reinbold as follows:                                                                      
     This bill  is very strictly  written, so that  while it                                                                    
     is moved to regulations,  the department is really only                                                                    
     given one option  which is to set  the federal amounts,                                                                    
     and no more.  So, that does limit that.                                                                                    
     But,  I  would like  to  speak  to your  concern  about                                                                    
     raising   penalties  because   you're  right.     Quite                                                                    
     frankly,  all  these  penalties will  automatically  --                                                                    
     this first  adjustment will be  a 78  percent increase.                                                                    
     And, I  can't sugarcoat  that, and  keep in  mind these                                                                    
     are maximums, these are not  the actual penalties.  So,                                                                    
     when you  see those  numbers, that sticker  shock isn't                                                                    
     what most businesses are seeing when a cost shows up.                                                                      
     That  being said,  it --  it's a  tough call,  but it's                                                                    
     either us  issuing those higher penalties,  or it's the                                                                    
     federal government  issuing those higher  penalties and                                                                    
     taking  that  money  back  to  the  federal  government                                                                    
     instead  of depositing  it as  into  the state  general                                                                    
     Second of  all, I --  I have several studies  here that                                                                    
     show that an employer who  receives a penalty from OSHA                                                                    
     or from  AKOSH, in  this case,  actually sees  a pretty                                                                    
     large savings  over the next  several years  in reduced                                                                    
     injury  and illness  and;  therefore, reduced  workers'                                                                    
     compensation  costs  that  far  exceed  the  amount  in                                                                    
     penalties  that they  paid.   So,  there's actually  an                                                                    
     economic   benefit  for   an   employer  paying   those                                                                    
     penalties because it -- I  mean, some employers, a few,                                                                    
     actually  see these  visits  from OSHA  as  a low  cost                                                                    
     consultation service.  It may  have been involuntary --                                                                    
     involuntary,  but in  the  end, they  are  able to  get                                                                    
     assistance  and   additional  knowledge  on   what  the                                                                    
     requirements  are   and  how   to  better   keep  their                                                                    
     employees safe.  So,  those workers' compensation costs                                                                    
     are  really much  higher.   The cost  of an  injury and                                                                    
     illness are way higher than what the penalties are.                                                                        
2:54:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  agreed that it  as sticker shock.   Now,                                                               
she said, the  big gun was being used by  increasing penalties by                                                               
78  percent, and  she had  received many  complaints about  these                                                               
agencies being trigger happy.                                                                                                   
2:54:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN commented  that the  bill  presents an  interesting                                                               
situation  in  that the  federal  government  doesn't state  that                                                               
Alaska  must raise  its statute,  it leaves  it up  to Alaska  to                                                               
choose with the caveat that  if Alaska doesn't follow the federal                                                               
government  it  will come  in  and  take  over.   The  price  for                                                               
maintaining some  degree of  autonomy is that  Alaska must  be in                                                               
compliance with the  federal limits.  The  legislature could make                                                               
the  choice  to  let  the  federal government  come  in  but,  he                                                               
surmised,  most  of  the  public  would  prefer  the  legislature                                                               
maintain  control  of this  particular  element,  and he  offered                                                               
concern about  the cost  of compliance.   He  then referred  to a                                                               
death at an Anchorage construction  site because the employer was                                                               
grossly out-of-compliance  and when looking at  those high fines,                                                               
they were appropriate.   Everyone wants employers  to succeed but                                                               
not  by  putting  their  workers   in  dangerous  situations,  he                                                               
2:56:22 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to the statement  that the state                                                               
had  only  one   option  in  dealing  with   the  maximum  amount                                                               
established on the  federal side, and noted that  the language in                                                               
the bill  read as  follows: "not more  than the  maximum amount."                                                               
He commented that it would be  appealing to save lots of money by                                                               
eliminating the  state work if  the state was just  doing exactly                                                               
what the federal government would be  doing anyway.  In the event                                                               
the state  has another  governmental partner  willing to  do work                                                               
for the  state, he said he  is all for it  in some circumstances.                                                               
He then asked  whether the state was expected to  access fines at                                                               
that maximum  amount if the  department or other  persons setting                                                               
those  amounts chose  to  set a  low amount.    He further  asked                                                               
whether the federal government would  come in and say that Alaska                                                               
was  out of  compliance because  it was  not fining  enough, even                                                               
though the legislature  gave statutory authority to  fine to that                                                               
maximum amount.                                                                                                                 
2:57:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. KELLY  addressed the first  part of  Representative Eastman's                                                               
question, and  related that she  does not believe  the department                                                               
was doing  exactly what  the federal  government was  doing, such                                                               
that the  department develops local  safety and  health standards                                                               
unique  to Alaska's  industries.   It also  provides coverage  to                                                               
both state  and local  public employees  that federal  OSHA would                                                               
not provide, and  as far as the ability of  the commission to set                                                               
lower  amounts, Representative  Eastman was  correct.   This puts                                                               
the  department  between two  limits,  and  the Alaska  statutory                                                               
limit  would  be   the  higher  limit,  and   the  federal  grant                                                               
requirements and  jurisdictional requirements would be  the lower                                                               
limit.   Therefore,  if a  commissioner did  decide to  set lower                                                               
amounts by regulation, then the  federal equivalents would decide                                                               
that Alaska  was not complying  with its requirements.   She said                                                               
that the division ran some numbers  and assessed that it was less                                                               
than 10  percent of the  maximum penalties.  She  reiterated that                                                               
the numbers  of the  sticker shock  are theoretical  maximums and                                                               
reserved  for egregious  cases,  such as  the  case Chair  Claman                                                               
referred to earlier.  She  explained that that situation was what                                                               
the statutory  maximums were there  for, and a situation  such as                                                               
that would be  the only time the division would  assess such high                                                               
2:59:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS asked  the industry's  perspective                                                               
on  this  because  he  did   not  see  documents  in  support  or                                                               
MS. KELLY  responded that the  perspective from the  industry was                                                               
that no  one loves  OSHA, but in  1999 the  overwhelming response                                                               
was in favor  of Alaska jurisdiction.  In  addition, the division                                                               
does provide free consultation service  wherein it shows up to an                                                               
employer, with  no penalties or  citations involved,  and assists                                                               
the employer in  coming into compliance and learning  how to keep                                                               
their employees  safe and healthy on  the job.  She  described it                                                               
as  a popular  program  because  it helps  folks  in the  seafood                                                               
processing  industry, in  particular,  come  into compliance  and                                                               
determine  how to  keep their  people  safe in  that high  hazard                                                               
industry.   The OSHA  is not  popular, but  federal OSHA  is less                                                               
popular than AKOSH, she remarked.                                                                                               
3:01:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   requested   the   quantity   of                                                               
consultations AKOSH performs annually.                                                                                          
MS. KELLY  replied that in  addition to consultation,  AKOSH also                                                               
offers  training to  the public  and employers  which reaches  an                                                               
additional  set of  people.    She said  she  could provide  this                                                               
information after the meeting.                                                                                                  
3:02:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Ms. Kelly  that she could provide the answer                                                               
to  his   query  at  the   next  meeting.    He   continued  that                                                               
Representative Reinbold  raised an interesting question  of going                                                               
through the  regulation process and, he  commented, that "there's                                                               
a  level that  what we're  essentially  doing is  saying, in  the                                                               
legislative  sense,  'Uncle,  we'll  -- we'll  use  your  maximum                                                               
rates.'"   He described a component  in which one might  ask, why                                                               
the  legislature   needs  to  go   through  the  exercise   of  a                                                               
regulation, why  not just have  a statutory provision  which read                                                               
that  the  Alaska   maximum  rate  would  be   the  maximum  rate                                                               
established  by whatever  federal statute  setting this  up.   At                                                               
some  point, he  asked,  why doesn't  the  legislature just  say,                                                               
"Uncle as  a matter  of Alaska statute?"   Thereby,  he remarked,                                                               
the  regulatory   process  would   be  unnecessary   because  the                                                               
legislature  in  recognizing  the federal  government's  maximum,                                                               
would be the maximum Alaska would have.                                                                                         
3:03:20 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. KELLY  explained that  it was a  balancing test  the division                                                               
performed while it  looked at what other states  were working on,                                                               
and the division considered what  might be the most acceptable to                                                               
folks.    Quite  frankly,  she advised,  the  division  ended  up                                                               
balancing on the  side of the regulatory process, but  it was not                                                               
opposed to putting it into the statute.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  reiterated  that  it  is  critical  the                                                               
legislature writes  the statutes, determines the  budget, and not                                                               
just  at the  beck  and  call of  the  federal  government.   She                                                               
pointed  out that  the legislature  needs to  keep as  much local                                                               
control and state control as possible,  and she agreed that it is                                                               
a balancing act.                                                                                                                
3:05:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  surmised  that  the  committee  was  simply                                                               
adopting a  maximum penalty  schedule, and  nothing at  all about                                                               
what the  discretion was in that  range.  He said  he understands                                                               
that there is  an approximate 60 percent discount  of the penalty                                                               
schedule for small businesses as a base line.                                                                                   
3:05:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KITO   remarked   that   the   legislature   was                                                               
establishing, either through regulation  or however the committee                                                               
ends  up  doing  this  bill,  a  federal  maximum  penalty.    He                                                               
reiterated  Ms.  Kelly,  and  said that  even  with  the  current                                                               
penalty system, the assessments were  less than 10 percent of the                                                               
[HB 121 was held over.]                                                                                                         
3:07:00 PM                                                                                                                    
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB121 ver O 2.27.17.PDF HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB121 Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB121 Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB121 Supporting Document-Federal Memo to State 2.23.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB121 Supporting Document-OSHA Fact Sheet 3.6.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB121 Fiscal Note DOLWD-OSH 2.24.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 121
HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB020 Amendments 1-13 3.7.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 20
HB020 Supporting Document-Emails of Support 3.7.17.pdf HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 20