Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/26/2018 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
+ HB 319 RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 316 RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 316(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 330 DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 330(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                       February 26, 2018                                                                                        
                           1:05 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice-Chair                                                                              
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Zach Fansler                                                                                                     
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 319                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to criminal  background  checks for  marijuana                                                               
establishment registrations  and renewals;  and providing  for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 316                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating  to  the sealing  of  certain  court  records;                                                               
restricting the publication of certain  records of convictions on                                                               
a  publicly available  website; relating  to public  records; and                                                               
amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 316(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 330                                                                                                              
"An  Act authorizing  the commissioner  of  natural resources  to                                                               
disclose   confidential  information   in  an   investigation  or                                                               
proceeding, including  a lease royalty audit,  appeal, or request                                                               
for  reconsideration and  issue a  protective order  limiting the                                                               
persons who have access to the confidential information."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 330(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 319                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
01/31/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/31/18       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/13/18       (H)       STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/13/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/13/18       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/15/18       (H)       STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/15/18       (H)       Moved CSHB 319(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/15/18       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/16/18       (H)       STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR                                                                                
02/16/18       (H)       DP: TUCK, KNOPP, WOOL, LEDOUX, KREISS-                                                                 
                         TOMKINS                                                                                                
02/16/18       (H)       NR: BIRCH, JOHNSON                                                                                     
02/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 316                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
01/31/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/31/18       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/09/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/09/18       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
02/12/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/12/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/12/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 330                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
02/05/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/05/18       (H)       JUD, RES                                                                                               
02/16/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/16/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/16/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/21/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/21/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/21/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/23/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/23/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/23/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff                                                                                                            
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, presented                                                                
the legislation on behalf of Representative Josephson.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director                                                                                                       
Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office                                                                                              
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
BRANDON EMMETT, Vice-Chair                                                                                                      
Marijuana Control Board                                                                                                         
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
GARY LEE, Criminal Justice Planner                                                                                              
Division of Statewide Services                                                                                                  
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
PAUL DISDIER, General Manager                                                                                                   
Fireweed Factory LLC                                                                                                            
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
JANA WELTZIN, Attorney                                                                                                          
Counsel to Hoban Law Group                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 319, testified,                                                               
answered questions, and offered support for the legislation.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff                                                                                                       
Representative Harriet Drummond                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 316,  answered                                                             
questions on behalf of Representative Drummond.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff                                                                                                               
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  HB 330,  presented                                                             
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ED KING, Legislative Liaison                                                                                                    
Commissioner's Office                                                                                                           
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 330,  answered                                                             
questions regarding Amendment 2.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:05:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to order  at 1:05  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins,  Eastman,  and Reinbold  were  present  at the  call  to                                                               
order.   Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, and  Stutes (alternate for                                                               
Representative Fansler) arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
        HB 319-RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:05:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  319,  "An Act  relating  to criminal  background                                                               
checks  for marijuana  establishment registrations  and renewals;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:06:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEGAN  HOLLAND,  Staff,  Representative  Andy  Josephson,  Alaska                                                               
State   Legislature,   advised   that  CSHB   319   changes   the                                                               
fingerprinting requirements  for marijuana  registration renewal.                                                               
Under  current   statute,  marijuana  registration   holders  are                                                               
required to submit a new set  of fingerprints on an annual basis,                                                               
and this legislation changes that  requirement from every year to                                                               
every six  years.  She  explained that the annual  requirement is                                                               
not  standard for  other  industries,  although, massage  therapy                                                               
requires that  new fingerprints are  submitted after  the initial                                                               
registration,  and there  is  active  legislation addressing  the                                                               
massage therapy  issue.  The  interest in these  proposed changes                                                               
originated in  the Department of  Commerce, Community  & Economic                                                               
Development (DCCED)  due to its Alaska  Public Safety Information                                                               
System  (ASPIN)  that  provides  notice of  any  changes  in  the                                                               
criminal activity  of a  license or  registration holder  who had                                                               
previously provided  their fingerprints.   Due  to the  fact that                                                               
the  requirement to  turn  in  a "fresh  set"  of fingerprint  is                                                               
currently  in   place  and  given   the  fact  that   a  person's                                                               
fingerprints  do   not  change,   and  their   fingerprints  were                                                               
initially logged into this data  base, it is the sponsor's belief                                                               
that this requirement is unnecessary, she explained.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:07:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. HOLLAND  advised that the  previous version of this  bill, as                                                               
heard in  the House  State Affairs  Standing Committee,  set this                                                               
requirement  to  once  every  three  years,  which  was  an  idea                                                               
proposed by the  Alcohol and Marijuana Control Board.   The House                                                               
State  Affairs Standing  Committee  decided to  amend the  three-                                                               
years to  every six-years and  it passed with  unanimous support.                                                               
She noted  that her research  into how  this issue is  handled in                                                               
other adult-use legal  states  found that some  states do require                                                               
that  new  fingerprints  are  turned  in;  however,  most  states                                                               
include language that  the state may require  new fingerprints if                                                               
there  is a  demonstrated investigative  need.   This legislation                                                               
removes  an unnecessary  burden to  both industry  and the  state                                                               
without compromising the public's safety, she offered.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:09:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Director  Erika  McConnell,                                                               
Alcohol  and Marijuana  Control Office,  what the  fingerprinting                                                               
policy would look like in  order for marijuana license holders to                                                               
be treated the same as alcohol beverage license holders.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:10:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ERIKA MCCONNELL,  Director, Alcohol  & Marijuana  Control Office,                                                               
Department   of  Commerce,   Community  &   Economic  Development                                                               
(DCCED), advised that AS 04.11.295  is the statute on the alcohol                                                               
side, and she paraphrased as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
      An applicant for applicant for issuance of a license                                                                      
     shall submit fingerprints ... the board may require an                                                                     
     applicant  for renewal  of a  license or  a conditional                                                                    
     contractor's   permit  under   this  title   to  submit                                                                    
     fingerprints  and   pay  fees   as  required   by  this                                                                    
     subsection."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:10:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked why the law  should not read                                                               
the same for those in the marijuana industry.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MCCONNELL noted  that while  both  substances are  regulated                                                               
substances,  marijuana  is  illegal  at  the  federal  level  and                                                               
alcohol is  not illegal.   She then  deferred to  Brandon Emmett,                                                               
Vice Chair, Marijuana Control Board.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:11:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRANDON  EMMETT,  Vice-Chair,  Marijuana Control  Board,  advised                                                               
that the  Marijuana Control Board contemplated  this issue during                                                               
a previous meeting  which was centered around the  fact that many                                                               
of the  people in the marijuana  industry and those who  voted to                                                               
legalize marijuana wanted it regulated  like alcohol.  Except, he                                                               
pointed out, there  are still issues surrounding  the legality of                                                               
marijuana  on the  federal level  and some  of the  board members                                                               
raised concerns.   The ideas were that the  language reflect what                                                               
is in  alcohol, and  that the registration  be every  five years.                                                               
The  Marijuana Control  Board settled  on a  compromise of  every                                                               
three  years  which  reflected  the  two  sides  of  the  board's                                                               
opinion.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:13:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS surmised  that the  process within                                                               
the alcohol beverage  industry is that a  person is fingerprinted                                                               
upon  transfer of  an alcohol  beverage license  and the  Alcohol                                                               
Beverage  Control  Board  may  ask   for  new  fingerprints,  for                                                               
whatever  reason and  whatever time,  but there  is no  recurring                                                               
fingerprinting requirement.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MCCONNELL  replied  that Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins  was                                                               
correct.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:14:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  related  that he  was  trying  to                                                               
understand  how  it  would  be  a compromise  when  part  of  the                                                               
Marijuana Control Board preferred every  five years and the other                                                               
members  preferred  using  the  language  used  for  the  Alcohol                                                               
Beverage  Control  Board,  which  appears  to  be  an  even  less                                                               
restrictive measure.   He acknowledged  that the  legislature had                                                               
since changed that, and he asked  how three years is a compromise                                                               
and  what  were  the  arguments  against "doing  as  is  done  in                                                               
alcohol."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. EMMETT  answered that there  definitely was not  consensus by                                                               
the board  members as  to whether the  language should  stay with                                                               
the every-year requirement or be  essentially open-ended, such as                                                               
in  alcohol,  and after  some  discussion,  three years  was  the                                                               
compromise.  He explained that  the body of the Marijuana Control                                                               
Board is  often split on  many decisions with robust  debate, and                                                               
it  then comes  to  some sort  of  a compromise  on  most of  the                                                               
divisive issues.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:16:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked that the department  and the                                                               
board  flag this  issue, and  he remarked  that marijuana  is now                                                               
decriminalized and  legal.   He commented that  he would  like to                                                               
hear a  compelling reason as to  why there should be  a recurring                                                               
fingerprinting requirement as opposed  to what happens within the                                                               
alcohol  industry.    He  asked  what  the  problem  a  recurring                                                               
fingerprinting  requirement is  solving, besides  being a  lot of                                                               
hassle for a lot of people.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HOLLAND answered that the  benefit of a recurring requirement                                                               
for  submitting  new fingerprints  is  that  in requesting  those                                                               
fingerprints,   it   triggers   a  national   background   check.                                                               
Although, she acknowledged, the  department has software to track                                                               
changes in  the criminal  activity of  registration holders  on a                                                               
state level,  it does  not do  so on  a national  level.   In the                                                               
event  a registration  holder was  involved in  criminal activity                                                               
outside  of  Alaska, the  department  would  be unaware  of  that                                                               
activity, she explained.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:18:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  asked  why   it  is  in  Alaska's                                                               
interest to  be aware of  any potential criminal activity  that a                                                               
marijuana  license  holder  might  be  complicit  in  outside  of                                                               
Alaska,  and  why there  is  a  greater  concern on  a  marijuana                                                               
license holder than on an alcohol beverage license holder.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. HOLLAND  pointed out that  marijuana is still illegal  on the                                                               
federal  level,   thereby,  causing  an  incentive   to  be  more                                                               
restrictive on this industry as compared to alcohol.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:19:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked, "What  gives if  someone is                                                               
complicit in  federal illegal activity  if they hold  a marijuana                                                               
license nationally."   While he realizes that is "sort  of bad in                                                               
general,"  he   asked  whether  that   endangers  the   legal  or                                                               
decriminalized status  of marijuana  in Alaska if  something does                                                               
appear on the background check.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.   MCCONNELL   referred   to   the   marijuana   statute,   AS                                                               
17.38.010(b), which read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     (b) In the interest of  the health and public safety of                                                                    
     our  citizenry,  the  people of  the  state  of  Alaska                                                                    
     further find  and declare that the  production and sale                                                                    
     of marijuana should be regulated so that                                                                                   
          (1)  individuals will  have to  show proof  of age                                                                    
     before purchasing marijuana;                                                                                               
          (2)  legitimate,  taxpaying business  people,  and                                                                    
     not criminal  actors, will conduct sales  of marijuana;                                                                    
     and                                                                                                                        
          (3)  marijuana sold  by regulated  businesses will                                                                    
     be  labeled and  subject to  additional regulations  to                                                                    
     ensure that consumers are informed and protected.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. MCCONNELL explained that later  on in the statute, it clearly                                                               
states that certain criminal acts,  certain felonies, and certain                                                               
misdemeanors are  disqualifying situations  for people to  hold a                                                               
marijuana  license.   On  the alcohol  side,  she explained,  the                                                               
board has the  discretion to evaluate a criminal act  on the part                                                               
of an applicant  or licensee and make a  determination whether to                                                               
allow that person  to become a licensee.  She  reiterated that on                                                               
the alcohol  side it is  at the discretion  of the board,  on the                                                               
marijuana  side  there  is   statutory  language  directing  that                                                               
certain types of criminal actors are not to be licensees.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:20:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  that  someone  walk the  committee                                                               
through the  process by which  the fingerprinting  and background                                                               
checks take place.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MCCONNELL responded  that part  of  the application  process                                                               
includes a number of different  forms, a set of fingerprints, and                                                               
a set  of fees.   Once all of those  things are submitted  to the                                                               
Alcohol  and Marijuana  Control  Office, it  begins the  process.                                                               
The  actual fingerprints  are transferred  to  the Department  of                                                               
Public Safety  (DPS) to perform the  national criminal background                                                               
check and it then provides DCCED  with a report of the results of                                                               
that check.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:21:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   surmised  that  someone   provides  the                                                               
Marijuana Control  Board with  a copy  of fingerprints  "they may                                                               
have  obtained somewhere  else," submits  all of  the forms,  her                                                               
office  processes  them  and  sends  [the  fingerprints]  to  the                                                               
authorities to perform the national check.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether  Representative Eastman was suggesting                                                               
that  a   person  could  sit   in  their  home   and  fingerprint                                                               
themselves, or was  he saying that DCCED  chooses the third-party                                                               
vendor.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  DCCED performs the  act of                                                               
fingerprinting  at   its  office,  or  whether   it  accepts  the                                                               
fingerprints from another source.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. MCCONNELL  answered that the  fingerprinting is  performed on                                                               
the appropriate  form by third-party  businesses and the  list of                                                               
those third-parties are located on the department's website.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:23:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that when  a person  becomes a member  of the                                                               
Alaska  Bar Association  (ABA) their  fingerprints are  taken one                                                               
time  and never  again.   He commented  that the  only reason  to                                                               
request  the  fingerprints  here   is  to  trigger  the  national                                                               
background check.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. HOLLAND  replied that Chair  Claman was correct,  the purpose                                                               
in  obtaining the  new fingerprints  is to  trigger the  national                                                               
background check.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:24:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   asked  how  the  fee   relates  to  the                                                               
background check,  and whether it is  simply of the cost  for the                                                               
state to perform that background check.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MCCONNELL answered  that a $47 fee was set  by DPS, and DCCED                                                               
collects that fee and transfers  it to DPS through a Reimbursable                                                               
Services Agreement (RSA).  She  then deferred to someone from DPS                                                               
to explain that particular fee.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:25:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GARY  LEE,  Criminal  Justice   Planner,  Division  of  Statewide                                                               
Services, Department of Public Safety,  answered that the $37 fee                                                               
is a direct charge to  the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)                                                               
and $10  is a processing fee  to digitize the prints  and prepare                                                               
them to send to the FBI.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:25:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN surmised  that  a  person's Alaska  crime                                                               
would  appear  [in  ASPIN]  without  performing  this  additional                                                               
fingerprinting or  background check.   In  the event  someone ran                                                               
afoul  of  federal laws  with  regard  to marijuana,  would  that                                                               
information be transmitted to the  state, or with this additional                                                               
background check and fingerprinting, "is  that what would help us                                                               
to figure that out?"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LEE  explained that  the  Alaska  Public Safety  Information                                                               
System  (ASPIN) only  records  state  charges, and  if  it was  a                                                               
federal charge, Alaska  would have no visibility of  it unless an                                                               
additional national fingerprint database check was conducted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:26:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS asked  whether the  fingerprinting                                                               
requirements in the State of  Alaska require one full-time person                                                               
or more.  He further  asked the anticipated administrative burden                                                               
associated with  the marijuana  industry and  fingerprinting, and                                                               
whether  it has  required  bringing on  additional capacity  with                                                               
this  new industry  coming online.    He requested  that Mr.  Lee                                                               
disregard the  recurring fingerprints  question, he  simply would                                                               
like a sense of the requirements of the operations.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. LEE  answered that the  fingerprinting division  employs four                                                               
people and  they process  all of  the cards,  and there  are more                                                               
people in the records section that  handle the cards as they come                                                               
in.    It   is  "very  broad  based,"   and  massage  therapists,                                                               
attorneys, and any number of people  go through the process.  The                                                               
number  of  new  or  changed  applicants  through  the  marijuana                                                               
industry is  insignificant and it  has not caused  any additional                                                               
personnel staffing.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:28:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSHB 319.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:28:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PAUL  DISDIER, General  Manager,  Fireweed  Factory LLC,  offered                                                               
that  Fireweed  Factory,  LLC is  a  state  licensed  cultivating                                                               
facility and  it has a retail  store in Juneau.   He advised that                                                               
nine  LLC members  encompass the  Fireweed  Factory and  it is  a                                                               
burden every  year to  make sure  all of  the members  have their                                                               
fingerprints taken, get the paperwork  back to him, and then send                                                               
everything  to  the state  to  have  its  license renewed.    The                                                               
requirement is  usually during the  summer and last year  was the                                                               
first time  "we went through  this" with  one of its  LLC members                                                               
being  in  Europe  and  another member  on  vacation  with  their                                                               
children.   This year, he  said, he  has already notified  all of                                                               
the  LLC  members to  begin  the  process.    In the  event  this                                                               
requirement was  to be  extended to ten  years, six  years, three                                                               
years, or whatever,  it would certainly be less of  a burden than                                                               
every  year.    It  was  his estimation,  he  offered,  that  the                                                               
Fireweed Factory  LLC probably  had more  LLC members  than other                                                               
marijuana  entities  in  this  state.     Funding  for  marijuana                                                               
businesses usually  takes place under  a group of  investors with                                                               
the same  type of  problems his  company experiences  every year.                                                               
He related,  that he would  appreciate it if the  committee would                                                               
consider changing it from "three to something."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:31:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to the applications  Mr. Disdier                                                               
submitted on behalf  of himself and others and  asked whether any                                                               
of  those applicants  had been  denied  due to  something on  the                                                               
background check.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. DISDIER  answered that  everyone in his  LLC had  no previous                                                               
legal  problems  and  the  fingerprinting  passed  through  "just                                                               
fine."   The investors  in Fireweed  Factory include  an attorney                                                               
and the  husband of a  doctor, and  he opined that  the committee                                                               
will  see that  those types  of people  are the  types of  people                                                               
investing in this  industry.  He pointed out  that [this process]                                                               
makes one feel  like they are still outlaws in  a way, "where you                                                               
don't trust us,  we want to make sure every  year that you're not                                                               
doing  any  kind  of  illegal  activity."   While,  he  said,  he                                                               
understands the reason for that  requirement and he does not want                                                               
to see  any illegal activity  coming into this industry,  but the                                                               
committee can  trust a  lot of  the people  who have  invested in                                                               
this business.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:32:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether he  was aware of  any other                                                               
competitors  in  this industry  in  Alaska  who applied  and  was                                                               
turned down due to the background check.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. DISDIER replied that he has not heard of a single person.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:33:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JANA WELTZIN, Attorney, Counsel to  Hoban Law Group, advised that                                                               
she  represents  a good  amount  of  the marijuana  industry  and                                                               
"we've done" probably  70 plus applications and  nothing has been                                                               
rejected for purposes of someone  not having the correct criminal                                                               
history.   She  related  that she  has companies  with  up to  20                                                               
investors  and wrangling  up  a two-week  timeframe  in order  to                                                               
obtain fingerprints  and perform its renewal  applications in the                                                               
middle of  summer is "kinda  tough."   She offered hope  that the                                                               
House  Judiciary   Standing  Committee   passes  this   piece  of                                                               
legislation  because it  would  help the  industry  to move  more                                                               
fluidly.   In echoing  the previous  speaker, she  concurred with                                                               
not treating  these legitimate businesses so  much like criminals                                                               
wherein they  must be  checked every 12-months  to see  if anyone                                                               
had gotten into any trouble.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:34:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS asked  whether she  would have  an                                                               
objection if  the industry were  treated the same as  the alcohol                                                               
industry   for  the   purposes   of   checking  criminality   and                                                               
fingerprint checks.  In that  regard, the Marijuana Control Board                                                               
could  require checks  whenever it  preferred, and  all transfers                                                               
would  require  checks,  but  no  assumed  recurring  fingerprint                                                               
requirement.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. WELTZIN said she would not  object other than as to the point                                                               
of  optics because  the  goal  is to  not  encourage any  federal                                                               
intervention activity in  the State of Alaska.  In  the event the                                                               
fingerprint  requirement was  completely  deleted,  which is  not                                                               
exactly what  Representative Kreiss-Tomkins asked, but  making it                                                               
discretionary  could give  a  bit more  leverage  to the  federal                                                               
government to step  in and advised that "you guys"  are not being                                                               
proactive in  making sure these  licensees do not  have felonies.                                                               
In the  event a couple of  examples of that actually  took place,                                                               
it  would  be "really  negative  on  our  ability" to  keep  this                                                               
industry   independent  and   completely  state   regulated,  she                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:35:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS noted  that  she had  made a  good                                                               
point which, in turn, brought  into focus previous testimony.  He                                                               
asked her thoughts about making the requirement every ten years.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. WELTZIN  said that  every ten  years would  be fine,  and six                                                               
years is fine,  although, a lot could happen every  ten years but                                                               
she guessed she  did not have too much of  an opinion between six                                                               
years  and ten  years.   She opined  that at  the point  a person                                                               
enters into the  market, they should have  their fingerprints and                                                               
background checks for  the transfer, and that  possibly every ten                                                               
years is a  good marker to reevaluate  someone's criminal history                                                               
and remain  compliant.  Possibly,  she suggested, every  year the                                                               
person could  attest through a  written affidavit that  they [had                                                               
not  been involved  in criminal  activity], and  that might  be a                                                               
good way  to keep  the federal  government from  interfering with                                                               
Alaska's market, she mused.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:36:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  whether   she  would  want  those                                                               
involved  in  the  marijuana  industry   to  be  more  frequently                                                               
background checked than attorneys, or the same.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WELTZIN responded  that attorneys  "have way  more lee-way,"                                                               
sometimes more than  they should.  They have a  fiduciary duty to                                                               
their  clients, they  are officers  of the  court, and  attorneys                                                               
should  undergo a  background check  more  often than  currently.                                                               
Attorneys  certainly get  into more  trouble  than the  marijuana                                                               
businesses, over all, she opined.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  mused that some  of the attorneys get  into trouble                                                               
by joining the legislature.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:37:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  that,  as a  legal representative  of                                                               
licensees,  are there  any  disqualifying  misdemeanors that  can                                                               
prevent  a licensee  from being  renewed  or cause  them to  lose                                                               
their license.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
[MS. WELTZIN asked for a few minutes to research the question.]                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:38:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  advised that the National  Crime Information                                                               
Center  (NCIC)   background  checks   locate  felonies   and  not                                                               
misdemeanors.    Only  felonies are  uploaded  into  NCIC  unless                                                               
"we're  doing something  brand  new."   In  the  event there  are                                                               
disqualifying misdemeanors, there is  a state-by-state check, but                                                               
that  is  "very  exhaustive  and time  intensive"  and  he  asked                                                               
whether the  DPS person could respond.   If, in fact,  one of the                                                               
purposes  for the  background check  and finger  printing was  to                                                               
identify  all disqualifying  offenses, he  said that  he did  not                                                               
think the standard NCIC background check "is doing it."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. WELTZIN clarified  that she thought the  question was whether                                                               
there  are  any disqualifying  misdemeanors  in  the statute  and                                                               
answered  that there  are  (audio  difficulties) subsection  (c),                                                               
misdemeanor crimes  involved in a controlled  substance, violence                                                               
against  a  person,  (audio difficulties)  or  dishonesty  (audio                                                               
difficulties) within  five years or (3)  has (audio difficulties)                                                               
two years before sending the  application if convicted of a class                                                               
A misdemeanor.  Therefore, she  commented, it appears that if the                                                               
federal background checks  do not pick up  on these misdemeanors,                                                               
it would  be tracked  by the  state-by-state checks  the previous                                                               
witness had mentioned.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether  Mr. Lee  could confirm  that nothing                                                               
has  changed  since  Representative  Kopp  was  involved  in  law                                                               
enforcement.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. LEE answered that Representative  Kopp was basically correct,                                                               
the national  records do indicate if  there is a record,  that it                                                               
can point  to the  state it originated.   In order  to do  a full                                                               
background check,  a person would  have to inquire of  each state                                                               
that  the  federal  database  reported  it has  a  record  of  an                                                               
individual.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the  federal record would show another                                                               
state's felony and  if there was a misdemeanor in  that state, it                                                               
would not  list what the  misdemeanor was, it would  just reflect                                                               
the misdemeanor  charge and then  Alaska would have to  follow up                                                               
with that other state.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. LEE advised that Chair Claman  was correct, but it is through                                                               
the   National  Communications   System,  there   is  a   message                                                               
transmission to pull  up the digitize data records,  and a person                                                               
does not have to actually call that state.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:41:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether that follow-up  takes place                                                               
automatically,  or  whether something  else  must  take place  in                                                               
order  to trigger  that follow  up.   Under  the state's  current                                                               
process for these licenses, if a  person applies for a license in                                                               
Alaska and  20-years ago they  had a misdemeanor on  their record                                                               
in  some other  state,  he  asked whether  the  board would  have                                                               
access to  what that misdemeanor  was so  it could rule  that the                                                               
misdemeanor was not disqualifying.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. LEE answered that the  full background check would inquire of                                                               
the state the  misdemeanor originated in to  determine the charge                                                               
and its disposition.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:42:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on CSHB 319.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[HB 319 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
         HB 316-RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:43:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 316, "An Act  relating to the sealing  of certain                                                               
court records; restricting the publication  of certain records of                                                               
convictions on  a publicly available website;  relating to public                                                               
records;   and    amending   Rule    37.6,   Alaska    Rules   of                                                               
Administration."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:43:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK  FITZGERALD,  Staff,   Representative  Harriet  Drummond,                                                               
Alaska State  Legislature, in  response to  Representative Kress-                                                               
Tomkins's question asked in the  previous hearing, with regard to                                                               
whether any  sort of expungement  or dealings took place  for the                                                               
people punished  or imprisoned due to  prohibition, answered that                                                               
it was  more of a  federal law.  He  explained that there  was an                                                               
amendment  in the  Constitution of  the United  States, and  once                                                               
prohibition  ended, the  federal  government left  it  up to  the                                                               
states to  decide how to  address the remainder of  the sentences                                                               
imposed  during  prohibition.    In  contrast,  he  pointed  out,                                                               
currently  the states  have been  ending prohibition  on cannabis                                                               
and marijuana rather than the federal government.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.   FITZGERALD,   in   response   to  a   question   asked   by                                                               
Representative Eastman in  a previous hearing with  regard to job                                                               
applications and  how someone would answer  the [felony] question                                                               
if  they  fit   the  criteria  in  the  bill,   he  advised  that                                                               
essentially,  the  person would  write  on  the job  application,                                                               
"Yes, I have been convicted; however,  as an employer you may not                                                               
have access  to it because it  is a crime that  was addressed and                                                               
is now legal."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:45:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   advised  that  Legislative  Legal   and  Research                                                               
Services  has permission  to make  any  technical and  conforming                                                               
amendments to the bill.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:46:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  1, Version 30-LS1017\O.1,                                                               
Radford/Martin, 2/21/18, which read as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, following line 10:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new paragraph to read:                                                                                            
               "(2)  was 21 years of age or older at the                                                                        
     time of commission of the offense; and"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 4:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new paragraph to read:                                                                                            
               "(2)  was 21 years of age or older at the                                                                        
     time of commission of the offense; and"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 17, following "was":                                                                                      
          Insert "21 years of age or older at the time of                                                                   
     commission of the offense and was"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:46:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FITZGERALD explained  that  Amendment 1  clarifies that  for                                                               
this to  apply, the individual would  have had to be  21-years of                                                               
age or older  during the issuing of the citation,  and he advised                                                               
that this  amendment was  worked out with  the Department  of Law                                                               
(DOL) and the  Alaska Court System (ACS).  He  remarked that when                                                               
the bill  was originally  drafted, it  was believed  that because                                                               
the  citation  to  be  given  would have  included  a  "minor  in                                                               
possession of"  or a  "minor using  whatever it  may be"  that it                                                               
would  not override  it.   However,  he  advised, this  amendment                                                               
clarifies that  the individual  would have had  to have  been 21-                                                               
years of age at the time, which is what is currently legal.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:47:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  whether  there  are any  potential                                                               
convictions out  there for something  that occurred  when someone                                                               
was 18-20 years of age.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FITZGERALD  advised  that  the  sponsor's  office  had  been                                                               
notified of  some convictions; however,  if the person  was below                                                               
the  age of  21  when  the citation  was  given,  this would  not                                                               
pertain to those individuals.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:47:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN   commented   that   that   creates   an                                                               
interesting situation  where, it  was confidential if  the person                                                               
was 21-years of age and did  something, but if they were younger,                                                               
it was not confidential.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. FITZGERALD  explained that the  idea behind the bill  is that                                                               
if a person  would have been legally possessing  marijuana at the                                                               
time, before  the state legalized marijuana,  the person's record                                                               
will be made confidential.  In the event the person was under-                                                                  
age, then "even  if you had it now, and  you were under-age, then                                                               
it would still be minor in possession."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:48:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  withdrew his  objection.  There  being no                                                               
objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:49:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that an issue  discussed during the                                                               
previous hearing  related to charges,  and he asked  whether this                                                               
confidentiality should  deal with  the single charge,  or whether                                                               
the charges are broader.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FITZGERALD answered  that this  bill applies  to the  "stand                                                               
alone charges," and this is solely the conviction of possession.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:49:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked which of the  following two options                                                               
the  sponsor   prefers,  narrowly   tailoring  it  to   the  sole                                                               
conviction  of possession,  or broadly  relating to  one of  many                                                               
different charges.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN said, "You mean, what does the bill do?"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  between those two options,                                                               
he would  like to know  where the  sponsor stands because  it was                                                               
the topic of conversation during the last hearing.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:50:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP declared  a point  of order.   He  commented                                                               
that it does not really matter  what the sponsor wants to do, the                                                               
question is "what does the bill do."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  remarked that if  this is the bill  sponsor's bill,                                                               
isn't  the   sponsor's  position  reflected  by   the  bill  they                                                               
submitted.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  said   he  is   asking  the   sponsor's                                                               
representative to confirm that ...                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised Mr. Fitzgerald  that he could  confirm that                                                               
the bill represents the sponsor's intent.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. FITZGERALD  stated that the  bill does reflect  the sponsor's                                                               
intent.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:51:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS moved  to report  HB 316,  Version                                                               
30-LS1017\O, Martin,  2/8/18, as  amended, out of  committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There  being no  objection, CSHB  316(JUD) moved  from the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:52:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          HB 330-DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:59:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  330,  "An Act  authorizing  the commissioner  of                                                               
natural  resources to  disclose  confidential  information in  an                                                               
investigation  or proceeding,  including a  lease royalty  audit,                                                               
appeal,  or request  for reconsideration  and issue  a protective                                                               
order limiting  the persons who  have access to  the confidential                                                               
information."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   advised  that  Legislative  Legal   and  Research                                                               
Services  has permission  to make  any  technical amendments  and                                                               
conforming changes to the bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:00:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:01:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 2,  Version 30-                                                               
GH2820\A.2, Radford, 2/23/18, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 2 - 3:                                                                                                       
          Delete "in an investigation or proceeding,                                                                        
      including a lease royalty audit, appeal, or request                                                                     
     for reconsideration"                                                                                                   
          Insert "during a royalty or net profit share                                                                        
     audit or appeal"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 25 - 26:                                                                                                     
          Delete "in an investigation or proceeding of the                                                                
        department, including a lease audit, appeal, or                                                                     
     request for reconsideration"                                                                                         
          Insert "during a royalty or net profit share                                                                      
     audit or appeal"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 28:                                                                                                           
          Delete "lease"                                                                                                    
          Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or                                                                      
     appeal"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "investigation or proceeding"                                                                              
          Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or                                                                      
     appeal"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "lease"                                                                                                    
          Following "royalty"                                                                                               
               Insert "or net profit share"                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:02:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative  Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  advised  that  the  intent of  Amendment  2  is  to                                                               
restrict the disclosures of confidential  information made by the                                                               
commissioner  of  the Department  of  Nature  Resources (DNR)  to                                                               
"royalty  or  net  profit  share   audits  for  appeals."    This                                                               
amendment "kind of tightens in"  the authority the department was                                                               
seeking  because  it  strikes  a  balance  between  the  concerns                                                               
expressed by  the industry  and the needs  of DNR  to efficiently                                                               
process  these cases.   This  language  will still  allow DNR  to                                                               
process  the vast  majority of  its cases  in which  it needs  to                                                               
disclose confidential  information and create  protective orders,                                                               
he said.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   objected  to  the   adoption  of                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:03:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ED KING,  Legislative Liaison, Commissioner's  Office, Department                                                               
of  Natural  Resources  (DNR), advised  that  Amendment  2  would                                                               
further narrow  the scope of the  commissioner's authority rather                                                               
than being a  general power to adjudicate and  resolve issues and                                                               
resolve audits  or appeals  related to  information that  is held                                                               
confidential.    This  amendment would  restrict  that  authority                                                               
solely to royalty  issues and net profit share issues.   Mr. King                                                               
advised  that the  vast majority  of the  issues requiring  these                                                               
types of  protective orders  are, in fact,  in the  royalty audit                                                               
and net profit share.  However,  he pointed out, there are issues                                                               
outside of royalties  and net profit share that  DNR would prefer                                                               
to also adjudicate  under the protective orders.   The preference                                                               
of DNR is that  Amendment 2 does not pass; however,  if it is the                                                               
will of the committee, DNR appreciates the efforts being made.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:04:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP   asked   whether   it   was   Mr.   King's                                                               
understanding that  this would  also protect  the confidentiality                                                               
of geological  data or sensitive  data as  to what a  field might                                                               
contain.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  responded that  with Amendment 2,  DNR would  no longer                                                               
have that authority  to issue protective orders  to resolve those                                                               
types of  issues.  He explained  that without Amendment 2,  it is                                                               
DNR's  reading of  the bill  that it  would have  the ability  to                                                               
resolve those  issues through  the commissioner's  office without                                                               
going to the court system and obtaining a protective order.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:05:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   noted  Mr.   King's   statement                                                               
regarding the strong majority of  instances in which a protective                                                               
order  would be  issued that  would relate  to royalties  and net                                                               
profit share.   He requested examples of those  other issues that                                                               
could  take advantage  of  this  tool were  it  available to  the                                                               
commissioner.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  answered that a specific  example that DNR had  to deal                                                               
with  is  related  to  private property  owners  with  a  mineral                                                               
interest  surrounding  a  geologic  structure.   For  example,  a                                                               
resource  specifically  in oil  and  gas,  is  when DNR  makes  a                                                               
decision  related to  the  extent  of the  resource  and to  what                                                               
extent it provides revenue to  the resource owner, DNR's decision                                                               
could impact how  much money that individual would  earn from the                                                               
production of those resources.   The department did have a fairly                                                               
rare  issue in  Cook Inlet  approximately 10-years  ago, and  the                                                               
issue could not  be resolved internally because DNR  did not have                                                               
the ability  to disclose that  confidential data to  the property                                                               
owner because  the data was collected  by the operator.   In that                                                               
circumstance, that  audit sat in the  commissioner's office until                                                               
the  appellant finally  went  to  court and  the  court issued  a                                                               
protective  order, at  that point,  DNR was  able to  resolve the                                                               
case, he explained.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:06:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKIN  asked whether  there are  any other                                                               
examples.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  reiterated that one  is currently being  litigated, and                                                               
he is not aware of any other circumstances.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:07:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether the  audit is being litigated  or the                                                               
protective order.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  answered that  that is a  different and  separate issue                                                               
related to the  same (audio difficulties) but it  is currently in                                                               
the superior court and the protective  order in that case has not                                                               
yet been issued.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  whether  that   is  the  main  issue  being                                                               
litigated or was it being litigated over the audit as well.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING responded that the case is not related to an audit.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:07:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD   noted   that  the   regional   native                                                               
corporations  own   the  minerals  below  the   surface,  and  if                                                               
Amendment 2  does not  pass, she asked  whether that  would allow                                                               
the  state to  also  obtain information  on  the regional  native                                                               
corporations.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  reiterated testimony from  a previous  hearing advising                                                               
that the department,  under this bill, does not  have the ability                                                               
to obtain  any new information,  the information is given  to DNR                                                               
by  the  producer.    The  question  is  how  can  DNR  use  that                                                               
information  to adjudicate  when there  is an  appeal, and  under                                                               
Representative Reinbold's  circumstance, the mental  health trust                                                               
or the native  corporation would have a lease  with the producer,                                                               
and  they  would have  to  administer  and adjudicate  their  own                                                               
appeals around that issue.   In the specific case being discussed                                                               
here,  where  DNR  has  this  private  landowner  adjacent  to  a                                                               
resource, there  may or may not  be a lease issued  that needs to                                                               
be  resolved there.   In  those circumstances,  the appellant  is                                                               
bringing  the  appeal  and  has standing  due  to  its  financial                                                               
interest  as an  adjacent landowner.   In  those situations,  DNR                                                               
cannot share the producer's information  with this private third-                                                               
party without  some protections over  that confidential  data, he                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:09:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  requested  another example  of  how  the                                                               
sponsor  envisions Amendment  2  having a  positive  impact on  a                                                               
particular situation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  responded  that   she  believes  the  one                                                               
example being litigated today and  another example from ten years                                                               
ago, does  not provide  a compelling  circumstance.   She related                                                               
that  she is  uncomfortable with  the ability  of DNR  to release                                                               
what  otherwise  would  be confidential  information  to  someone                                                               
outside of the department.  While  she realizes the need for this                                                               
legislation, she  would feel far  more comfortable with  the bill                                                               
if  it was  limited to  the circumstances  where it  was actually                                                               
most needed, she said.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:10:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  she is supportive of this                                                               
amendment  because  the  legislature   does  not  need  to  chase                                                               
investment out  of this state,  she believes in  private property                                                               
rights and  understands there is  a point where  some information                                                               
is needed.   She pointed out that Amendment 2  narrows the focus,                                                               
and during the previous hearing  the department did not object to                                                               
the change.  She said she would be a yes vote on the amendment.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  clarified for Representative Reinbold  that DNR was                                                               
not in possession Amendment 2 until today.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that  when people had testified                                                               
previously,  "they said"  the  primary  responsibility was  being                                                               
even with this  issue, and at the time there  was no objection to                                                               
it, which is why she will be supporting the amendment.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:12:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Eastman, Stutes,                                                               
Reinbold,  Kopp, and  LeDoux voted  in favor  of the  adoption of                                                               
Amendment  2.   Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins  and Claman  voted                                                               
against it.  Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-                                                                 
2.                                                                                                                              
2::19 PM                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS moved  to report  HB 330,  Version                                                               
30-GH2820\A,  as  amended,  out   of  committee  with  individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objections,  CSHB  330  moved  out  of  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:13:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 330
HB330 Amendments #1-2 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 330
HB330 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Vote 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 330
HB316 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver O 2.12.18.pdf HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Updated Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #1 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #2 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Additional Document-Legislative Research Report Convicstions for Marijuana Possession 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Amendment #1 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Amendment #1 HJUD Final Votes 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.12.18.pdf HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB316 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 316
HB319 ver D 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/5/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Summary of Changes 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Supporting Document-AMIA Letter 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Supporting Document-NCSL Report 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Supporting Document-Marijuana Control Board Minutes 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319
HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.26.18.pdf HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 319