Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/26/2018 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

Audio Topic
01:03:46 PM Start
01:04:29 PM SB81
01:52:49 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 81 DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 81(JUD) Out of Committee
Amendments for SB 81 due at 10:00 am
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 26, 2018                                                                                         
                           1:03 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice Chair                                                                              
Representative Louise Stutes                                                                                                    
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky (alternate)                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
OTHER LEGISLATORS                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 81(HSS)                                                                                                  
"An Act relating to criminal  and civil history record checks and                                                               
requirements; relating to  licenses, certifications, appeals, and                                                               
authorizations by  the Department of Health  and Social Services;                                                               
relating to  child protection information;  and providing  for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 81(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  81                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
03/08/17       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/08/17       (S)       HSS, JUD                                                                                               
02/02/18       (S)       HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/02/18       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/02/18       (S)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
02/05/18       (S)       HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/05/18       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/14/18       (S)       HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/14/18       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/14/18       (S)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/16/18       (S)       HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/16/18       (S)       Moved CSSB 81(HSS) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/16/18       (S)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/19/18       (S)       HSS RPT CS  2DP 2NR   NEW TITLE                                                                        
03/19/18       (S)       NR: WILSON, MICCICHE                                                                                   
03/19/18       (S)       DP: BEGICH, VON IMHOF                                                                                  
04/16/18       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
04/16/18       (S)       <Above Item Removed from Agenda>                                                                       
04/16/18       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/18/18       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
04/18/18       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/18/18       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/19/18       (S)       JUD RPT CS(HSS)  1DP 3NR                                                                               
04/19/18       (S)       DP: COGHILL                                                                                            
04/19/18       (S)       NR: WIELECHOWSKI, SHOWER, KELLY                                                                        
04/19/18       (S)       JUD AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
04/19/18       (S)       Moved CSSB 81(HSS) Out of Committee                                                                    
04/19/18       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/20/18       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/20/18       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 81(HSS)                                                                                  
04/23/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/23/18       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/25/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:05 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/25/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/25/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSSB 81, explained                                                                 
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff                                                                                                            
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSSB 81, answered                                                                  
questions regarding Amendment 1.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General                                                                                  
Statewide Section Supervisor                                                                                                    
Human Services Section                                                                                                          
Civil Division (Juneau)                                                                                                         
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  CSSB 81,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff                                                                                                               
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State Legislature                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of CSSB  81, explained                                                             
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAYSON WHITESIDE, Hearing Officer                                                                                               
Division of Motor Vehicles                                                                                                      
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  CSSB 81,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MARGARET BRODIE, Director                                                                                                       
Division of Health care Services                                                                                                
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  CSSB 81,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:03:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to  order at 1:03  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Eastman,                                                               
Reinbold, Kopp,  Stutes, LeDoux, and Kreiss-Tomkins  were present                                                               
at the call to order.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
        SB  81-DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:04:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 81(HSS),  "An Act relating to criminal and                                                               
civil  history  record  checks   and  requirements;  relating  to                                                               
licenses, certifications, appeals, and authorizations by the                                                                    
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to child                                                                     
protection information; and providing for an effective date."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:05:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-                                                                   
GS1676\D.3, Bruce, 4/24/18, which read as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 11:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 2. AS 17.38.200(a) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (a)  Each application or renewal application for                                                                      
     a  registration to  operate  a marijuana  establishment                                                                    
     shall be submitted to the  board. A renewal application                                                                    
     may be  submitted up to  90 days before  the expiration                                                                    
     of  the  marijuana establishment's  registration.  When                                                                    
     filing  an application  for  a  new registration  under                                                                
     this  subsection,   the  applicant  shall   submit  the                                                                    
     applicant's fingerprints  and the fees required  by the                                                                    
     Department  of  Public  Safety under  AS 12.62.160  for                                                                    
     criminal  justice information  and a  national criminal                                                                    
     history record  check. When  filing an  application for                                                                
     renewal of registration, an  applicant shall submit the                                                                
     applicant's fingerprints  and the fees required  by the                                                                
     Department  of  Public  Safety under  AS 12.62.160  for                                                                
     criminal  justice information  and a  national criminal                                                                
     history record check every five  years. The board shall                                                                
     forward the fingerprints and fees  to the Department of                                                                    
     Public Safety  to obtain a  report of  criminal justice                                                                    
     information  under  AS 12.62  and a  national  criminal                                                                    
     history record check under AS 12.62.400."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 3 - 10"                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs. 4 - 11"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:05:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that  Amendment 1 may  have been                                                               
passed unanimously on the floor  of the House of Representatives,                                                               
and  the  amendment relates  to  fingerprinting  with respect  to                                                               
marijuana  establishments.   She then  asked Representative  Andy                                                               
Josephson to come forward and explain Amendment 1.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:06:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,  Alaska State Legislature, advised                                                               
that  Amendment 1  simply requires  that a  commercial seller  of                                                               
marijuana be  fingerprinted every  five years, and  currently the                                                               
requirement is every year.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:06:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN opined  that the  committee passed  a ten                                                               
year designation  and it  was compromised down  to six  years, he                                                               
asked whether  the six year  requirement was passed on  the floor                                                               
of the House of Representatives.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered in the affirmative.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Representative  Josephson whether it  was six                                                               
years, and  if it was six  years, why does Amendment  1 read five                                                               
years.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  responded  that  it  read  five  years                                                               
because "we think this is an  opportunity to move this bill along                                                               
the path,"  and it is  appropriate under  the title of  the bill.                                                               
This  is  what the  marijuana  board  wishes and  the  department                                                               
definitely believes this amount of time is adequate, he said.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:08:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he likes six years.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:08:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  asked why  not keep it  at the  one year                                                               
requirement.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that  the department believes one                                                               
year is inconsistent  in treating marijuana the  same as alcohol,                                                               
it is onerous, and it is more than is necessary.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented  that it is a  new industry and                                                               
she believes  one year should be  fine, especially if that  is as                                                               
currently written  in statute.   She said  that the issue  is not                                                               
what the  department wants,  but what  the people  want, it  is a                                                               
public safety  issue, and five  years seems like an  awfully long                                                               
period of time.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:09:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Representative Josephson  to remind                                                               
the  committee  of  the  current  time  period  for  the  alcohol                                                               
industry  once an  establishment has  a license,  and whether  it                                                               
must come back every five years for a federal background check.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Megan Holland, staff.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:09:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEGAN  HOLLAND,  Staff,  Representative  Andy  Josephson,  Alaska                                                               
State   Legislature,  answered   that  there   is  no   statutory                                                               
requirement to  obtain additional  fingerprints to  renew alcohol                                                               
registration.   However, she offered, in  the alcohol regulations                                                               
it  is   common  practice  to  require   additional  fingerprints                                                               
approximately every  five years or  whenever there is  a transfer                                                               
or change.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES opined  that the practice is  that a person                                                               
is fingerprinted when there is a  transfer of the license and not                                                               
every five years.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  that was his understanding                                                               
as well.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Stacie Kraly,  DOL, whether the administration                                                               
has any objection to Amendment 1.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:10:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STACIE  KRALY,   Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor,  Human   Services  Section,  Civil  Division                                                               
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),  responded that the department                                                               
has no objection with Amendment 1.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:11:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  offered   Conceptual  Amendment   1  to                                                               
Amendment 1  to change  five years  to six  years, which  was the                                                               
compromise language.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said  that as a matter of  fact, there has                                                               
never been  a case in Alaska  where an application for  a license                                                               
has been  denied since  the program  began.   He offered  that he                                                               
does not  know why people have  to go through this  needless cost                                                               
of re-fingerprinting when there had  been no evidence of any type                                                               
of violation, and nothing had demonstrated a need.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:12:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX commented  that she  could live  with five                                                               
year, six years,  ten years, and because she could  live with all                                                               
of those  timelines, since the  bill's sponsor and the  board are                                                               
recommending five years, she said to leave it at five years.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS commented  that he  does not  take                                                               
what  the  Marijuana  Control  Board  (MCB)  says  as  gospel  or                                                               
necessarily representative  of what  is in  the best  interest of                                                               
the industry.   Especially, he offered, given  the board's flavor                                                               
and tilt that  is not necessarily reflective of  what he believes                                                               
are the  views of a  majority of  legislators toward the  now de-                                                               
criminalized  industry.     He  said  that  six   years  was  the                                                               
compromise on  the floor of  the House of Representatives  and he                                                               
supports it as a compromise in this context as well.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[The  committee   treated  the   objection  to  Amendment   1  as                                                               
maintained.]                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:13:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Eastman and Kreiss-                                                                
Tomkins voted in favor of  the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1                                                               
to Amendment 1.  Representatives  LeDoux, Reinbold, Kopp, Stutes,                                                               
and Claman voted  against it.  Therefore,  Conceptual Amendment 1                                                               
to Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  commented that  in recognizing  that this                                                               
committee has  been down this road  before, he said that  he will                                                               
maintain his objection to the  adoption of Amendment 1 because he                                                               
does  not see  the value  in  putting this  additional hurdle  on                                                               
applicants  for licenses.   The  legislature decided  to make  it                                                               
legal, and  it should be treated  in the same manner  as alcohol.                                                               
He pointed out  that that was the whole point  of the initiative,                                                               
it is what  the public wanted, and on behalf  of his district, he                                                               
would be a no vote.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  noted  that  Representative  Eastman  had                                                               
commented that  he would  object to Amendment  1 because  he does                                                               
not  want to  put more  hurdles on  the people  in the  industry.                                                               
Except,  she pointed  out, if  Amendment  1 does  not pass,  then                                                               
those people have to be fingerprinted  every year, so that is the                                                               
hurdle for people in the industry.   She related that if she were                                                               
in  the  industry,  which  she   is  not,  she  would  rather  be                                                               
fingerprinted every five  years rather than every  year, which is                                                               
the status quo.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:15:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Stutes,  LeDoux,                                                               
Kreiss-Tomkins, Kopp, and  Claman voted in favor  of the adoption                                                               
of  Amendment  1.   Representatives  Eastman  and Reinbold  voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by  a vote of 5-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:15:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 2,  labeled 30-                                                               
GS1676\D.4, Bruce, 4/24/18, which read as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "a new paragraph"                                                                                              
          Insert "new paragraphs"                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 11, following "Services":                                                                                     
          Insert ";                                                                                                             
               (20)  a position in the classified,                                                                              
     partially exempt,  or exempt service of  the state that                                                                    
     is  subject  to a  limitation  on  hiring or  retention                                                                    
     under AS 39.90.050"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 11:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "*  Sec. 2.  AS 39.90  is amended  by  adding a  new                                                                
     section to article 1 to read:                                                                                              
          Sec. 39.90.050. Employment of individuals with                                                                      
     access  to  vital  statistics  records.  (a)  A  hiring                                                                  
     authority may  not hire  or retain  an individual  in a                                                                    
     position  in  the   classified,  partially  exempt,  or                                                                    
     exempt  service  under  AS 39.25  for  which  regularly                                                                    
     assigned duties  include handling  or having  access to                                                                    
     vital statistics records, unless the                                                                                       
               (1)  individual submits to the hiring                                                                            
     authority   two   full   sets   of   the   individual's                                                                    
     fingerprints; and                                                                                                          
               (2)  hiring authority verifies that the                                                                          
     Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation has,  based  on  the                                                                    
     fingerprints provided under (1) of this subsection,                                                                        
               (A)  conducted a national criminal history                                                                       
     record check  of the individual  under AS 12.62.400(a);                                                                    
     and                                                                                                                        
               (B)  advised that the individual has not                                                                         
     been convicted of  a criminal offense of  which the use                                                                    
     or misuse of vital statistics records was an element.                                                                      
          (b)  Upon receipt of an individual's fingerprints                                                                     
     under (a)  of this section, the  hiring authority shall                                                                    
     submit  the fingerprints  to the  Department of  Public                                                                    
     Safety. The  Department of  Public Safety  shall submit                                                                    
     the   fingerprints    to   the   Federal    Bureau   of                                                                    
     Investigation  for a  national criminal  history record                                                                    
     check under AS 12.62.400(a).                                                                                               
          (c)  Upon receipt of the results of the national                                                                      
     criminal  history  record  check   under  (b)  of  this                                                                    
     section, the  Department of Public Safety  shall advise                                                                    
     the hiring  authority whether  the individual  has been                                                                    
     convicted of  a criminal  offense of  which the  use or                                                                    
     misuse of vital statistics records was an element.                                                                         
          (d)  In this section,                                                                                                 
               (1)  "hiring authority" means a person with                                                                      
     authority  to  hire  or  retain   an  individual  in  a                                                                    
     position  in  the   classified,  partially  exempt,  or                                                                    
     exempt service under AS 39.25;                                                                                             
               (2)  "vital statistics" has the meaning                                                                          
     given in AS 18.50.950."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 24:                                                                                                          
          Delete "This Act applies"                                                                                             
          Insert "(a) AS 12.62.400(a)(19), enacted by sec.                                                                      
     1 of this Act, and secs. 3 - 24 of this Act apply"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 3 - 10"                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs. 4 - 14"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, following line 27:                                                                                                
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          "(b)  AS 12.62.400(a)(20), enacted by sec. 1 of                                                                       
     this Act, and  AS 39.90.050, enacted by sec.  2 of this                                                                    
     Act, apply to the hiring  or retention of an individual                                                                    
     in a  position in the classified,  partially exempt, or                                                                    
     exempt service  of the state for  which assigned duties                                                                    
     include handling  or having access to  vital statistics                                                                    
     records under  AS 39.90.050, enacted by sec.  2 of this                                                                    
     Act, on or after the effective date of this Act."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:15:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that  the impetus for Amendment 2                                                               
came about because an employee  in the Health Analytics and Vital                                                               
Records  Section,  Department  of   Health  and  Social  Services                                                               
(DHSS), pointed out  to her that the people in  that section have                                                               
access to "really,  really important information."    She offered                                                               
that  if that  information got  into  the wrong  hands, it  could                                                               
cause disastrous  security breaches because  it could be  used to                                                               
create identities and  a credit history or  passport for someone.                                                               
She said  she would like  to hear  the department's view  of this                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:17:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY responded that while  the department does not object to                                                               
the  overall   policy  considerations  within  Amendment   2,  it                                                               
believes there is  a broader issue than  solely vital statistics,                                                               
and  there  are  a  couple of  concerns  and  considerations  the                                                               
department believes  should be taken  into fact here.   Ms. Kraly                                                               
relayed that the Department of  Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                               
has  a  number   of  employees  with  access  to   all  sorts  of                                                               
information, and  the Health Analytics and  Vital Records Section                                                               
is one.   There are other divisions and other  components of DHSS                                                               
that  have  confidential  information and  important  information                                                               
that should  also be evaluated.   Therefore, she said, it  is the                                                               
department's  belief   that  it  would  be   most  effective  and                                                               
efficient  if the  department evaluated  the entire  department's                                                               
employees'  pool to  determine who  should be  included within  a                                                               
more  rigorous  employment check  for  DHSS,  she offered.    The                                                               
department  also  believes   there  are  potentially  significant                                                               
collective bargaining  and personnel  issues related to  adding a                                                               
provision  such as  Amendment  2.   Ms.  Kraly  advised that  the                                                               
department requests that  it have an opportunity to  look at this                                                               
issue more globally  and more comprehensively and  draft a future                                                               
legislative fix  to address the background  check, the background                                                               
requirements,  or the  employment qualifications  for individuals                                                               
employed  in   DHSS.     She  explained   that  the   global  and                                                               
comprehensive  review  would  be  above  and  beyond  the  Health                                                               
Analytics and Vital Records Section  because the department needs                                                               
a more robust employment review  for people being hired, and that                                                               
would be accomplished outside of this amendment.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:18:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. Kraly  whether she was willing to                                                               
work on this issue over the interim with her.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  answered  that  she   "absolutely"  would  work  with                                                               
Representative LeDoux.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  advised that based upon  those assurances,                                                               
withdrew Amendment 2.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:19:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 3,  labeled 30-                                                               
GS1676\D.2, Bruce, 4/25/18, which read as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3, following "information;":                                                                                
          Insert "relating to revocation of a driver's                                                                        
     license;"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 11:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 2. AS 28.35.030(o) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (o)  Upon request, the department shall review a                                                                      
     driver's license revocation imposed under (n)(3) of                                                                        
     this section and                                                                                                           
               (1)  may restore the driver's license if                                                                         
               (A)  the license has been revoked for a                                                                          
     period of at least 10 years;                                                                                               
               (B)  the person has not been convicted of a                                                                      
     driving-related criminal offense in the 10 years                                                                       
     preceding the request for restoration of the license                                                                   
     [SINCE THE LICENSE WAS REVOKED]; and                                                                                       
               (C)  the person provides proof of financial                                                                      
     responsibility;                                                                                                            
               (2)  shall restore the driver's license if                                                                       
               (A)  the person has been granted limited                                                                         
     license privileges under AS 28.15.201(g) and has                                                                           
     successfully driven under that limited license for                                                                         
     three years without having the limited license                                                                             
     privileges revoked;                                                                                                        
               (B)  the person has successfully completed a                                                                     
     court-ordered treatment program under AS 28.35.028 or                                                                      
     a rehabilitative treatment program under                                                                                   
     AS 28.15.201(h);                                                                                                           
               (C)  the person has not been convicted of a                                                                      
     violation of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 or a similar                                                                        
     law or ordinance of this or another jurisdiction since                                                                     
     the license was revoked;                                                                                                   
               (D)  the person is otherwise eligible to                                                                         
     have the person's driving privileges restored as                                                                           
     provided in AS 28.15.211; in an application under this                                                                     
     subsection, a person whose license was revoked for a                                                                       
     violation of AS 28.35.030(n) or 28.35.032(p) is not                                                                        
     required to submit compliance as required under                                                                            
     AS 28.35.030(h) or 28.35.032(l); and                                                                                       
               (E)  the person provides proof of financial                                                                      
     responsibility."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 24:                                                                                                          
          Delete "This Act applies"                                                                                             
          Insert "(a) AS 12.62.400(a)(19), enacted by sec.                                                                      
     1 of this Act, and secs. 3 - 25 of this Act apply"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "secs. 3 - 10"                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs. 4 - 11"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 13, following line 27:                                                                                                
     Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                           
         "(b)  AS 28.35.030(o), as amended by sec. 2 of                                                                         
     this Act, applies to revocation of a driver's license                                                                      
     occurring before, on, or after the effective date of                                                                       
     sec. 2 of this Act, for conduct occurring before, on,                                                                      
     or after the effective date of sec. 2 of this Act."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:19:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that  a constituent called her an                                                               
explained  that is  license was  forever revoked,  it was  due to                                                               
"three strikes, you're  out" for a DWI.   Currently, she offered,                                                               
this person  has been  absolutely clean  for 14  years, he  has a                                                               
wife, two children,  a house, and a business.   Her constituent's                                                               
experience  was that  he  had  three DUI's  and  was then  caught                                                               
driving  while   his  license  was   revoked,  and   under  those                                                               
circumstances,  a  person  can never  possess  a  legal  driver's                                                               
license again.  The Division  of Motor Vehicles (DMV) advised her                                                               
staff  that if  this person  was caught  driving while  under the                                                               
influence now, he could attend  therapeutic court and once he had                                                               
completed its requirements,  based upon a law passed  a few years                                                               
ago there  would be a  path to  licensure.  Except,  she advised,                                                               
this person does not want to be  arrested for a DUI because he no                                                               
longer drinks, yet  that would be required for him  and the other                                                               
people in his situation to regain their driving licenses.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:22:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative  Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  opined that  if someone's  license was  permanently                                                               
revoked, pre-Senate  Bill 91 [passed in  the Twenty-Eighth Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature]  "and  yet,  after  the  time  of  revocation                                                               
receives a driving  related criminal offense, there is  -- let me                                                               
back up.   If this happened,  I believe, pre-SB 91,  pre -- there                                                               
is another pathway that SB 91 put  in.  And, if this had happened                                                               
prior to this  time, in the case of the  constituent it was 2002,                                                               
permanent revocation  of a license,  and then receives  a driving                                                               
related  criminal offense,  our  understanding from  DMV and  the                                                               
courts is  that there is  not a pathway  for this person  to ever                                                               
receive their  driver's license.   Except, in the case  they said                                                               
to  us, through  going  back to  therapeutic  court, which  would                                                               
require them to be charged with another crime."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:23:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   asked  the  Division   of  Motor                                                               
Vehicles  (DMV) to  confirm the  statement of  facts laid  out in                                                               
association with Amendment 3.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:24:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAYSON WHITESIDE,  Hearing Officer,  Division of  Motor Vehicles,                                                               
Department of  Administration, advised that he  has experience in                                                               
reviewing  terminations  or  revocations  for  these  felony  DUI                                                               
offenders,  and  noted   that  everything  Representative  LeDoux                                                               
stated is correct.  This issue has  been a concern at the DMV for                                                               
a while and  the division wanted this language to  be included in                                                               
Senate  Bill  91,  but it  never  made  it  into  the bill.    He                                                               
commented that it is good to see this issue come forward.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:24:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that the language  being removed in                                                               
Amendment 3,  is that  now if  a person has  been convicted  of a                                                               
driving related criminal offense,  and their license was revoked,                                                               
and  after  their license  was  revoked  they were  convicted  of                                                               
another  driving  related  criminal   offense,  this  provides  a                                                               
pathway for  a person to  wait ten  years and request  that their                                                               
license be re-instated.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITESIDE answered that in some  of the instances seen at the                                                               
DMV, when an  individual is convicted for  a (audio difficulties)                                                               
DUI, during the ten years  of their reviewed revocation they have                                                               
been  convicted of  a driving  related criminal  offense.   Under                                                               
current law, that  disqualifies the person from  a termination of                                                               
revocation, and under Senate Bill  91, the only other pathway for                                                               
a person to  get to re-licensure is to  attend therapeutic court.                                                               
Mr.  Whiteside  explained  that proposed  Amendment  3  basically                                                               
creates  a  sliding  window  wherein  "they  may  have  a  person                                                               
committed  a driving  related criminal  offense,  but since  it's                                                               
just within ten  years prior to their application,  they can wait                                                               
until they  serve ten  years without  a driving  related criminal                                                               
offense."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:26:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  whether  there  are parameters  on                                                               
this, for instance  if a person, as part of  that driving related                                                               
criminal  offense  after  their  license  was  revoked,  actually                                                               
killed  someone.   He  further asked  whether  that person  would                                                               
still be eligible under this  amendment for the sliding window he                                                               
spoke of, or whether that is precluded by something else.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN asked  whether Representative  Eastman was                                                               
referring  to  a person  killing  someone  in a  driving  related                                                               
offense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  said  he   agreed  with  Chair  Claman's                                                               
clarification.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITESIDE responded that there  is nothing in this that would                                                               
prevent  that  because it  is  black  and white  driving  related                                                               
criminal  offense.   What  "we're actually  terming  is a  felony                                                               
DUI."  There  would have to be a license  removal from a separate                                                               
charge, (audio difficulties) kill  or manslaughter, those sort of                                                               
things, vehicular  homicide where  the license has  been removed.                                                               
He related  that if it is  just a felony DUI,  those merits don't                                                               
take course in any of the review process.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:27:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that  she has heard  that many                                                               
people drive  while under the  influence and many people  are not                                                               
caught.  She asked how  many times people drive while dangerously                                                               
under  the influence,  and how  many times  do they  drive before                                                               
they are actually convicted.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITESIDE  answered that obviously  that is a hard  number to                                                               
nail down because without the  person actually being arrested and                                                               
charged with an offense, there are  no numbers.  From what he has                                                               
seen statistically,  he said that  for those people  driving with                                                               
their license revoked or charged  with a subsequent DUI, it takes                                                               
place  within   a  few  years   after  their   original  offense.                                                               
Typically,  he  offered, the  event  takes  place closer  to  the                                                               
action because they had not yet received the help they needed.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:28:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented  that "it sounds too  bad to be                                                               
true" with regard  to the fact that if someone  decides to "clean                                                               
their  act up"  and  their license  is  permanently revoked,  yet                                                               
under current law, they have to  get drunk again and do something                                                               
stupid  in order  to  have a  pathway to  licensure.   She  asked                                                               
whether it is true that a  person must go out and commit "another                                                               
act," and whether their previous history still comes into play.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITESIDE confirmed  that what is being said is  true.  Under                                                               
current law, in  order for the person in a  situation where their                                                               
revocation cannot be  terminated, they would have  to be arrested                                                               
for a  felony DUI, and go  through the therapeutic court  path in                                                               
order to obtain re-licensure.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD commented  that  that  is absolutely  an                                                               
unbelievable mess.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:29:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  he is slightly sympathetic                                                               
for the  person who has pulled  their life together, and  for the                                                               
person who at no fault of  their own, wound up in this situation.                                                               
He remarked that  just this month a person killed  someone in one                                                               
of the most  heinous acts his district has  experienced ever, and                                                               
someone did die.  He opined  that his district would like to know                                                               
that the person behind the wheel  that killed the young lady, who                                                               
still had  a blood  alcohol content  of over  .3 more  than three                                                               
hours  after he  killed  her,  will not  ever  receive a  license                                                               
again.   He related  that because  he does not  see that  in this                                                               
amendment as currently written, he is opposed to Amendment 3.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:31:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said that he  echoes a lot of  the sentiment                                                               
expressed by  Representative Eastman, but there  is a distinction                                                               
between  the  person  going  through   a  period  of  their  life                                                               
suffering from  substance abuse issues and  receiving their third                                                               
moving violation DUI, without any  instance of personal injury or                                                               
death.  For those  folks who have taken all of  the steps to show                                                               
they  are trustworthy  and able  to  handle that  responsibility,                                                               
there  is wisdom  in having  insured drivers  on the  road versus                                                               
uninsured.  Many  of these folks choose to drive  to work and are                                                               
uninsured, thereby putting  the rest of us at risk.   While he is                                                               
empathetic,  he  said,  in  helping certain  people  get  on  the                                                               
stringent and hard  path back unless the  person's actions caused                                                               
harm  or death  to anyone  because part  of feeling  the pain  of                                                               
their  victims is  permanently losing  their driving  privileges.                                                               
He  offered that  he  does not  think Amendment  3  gets at  that                                                               
differentiation  and he  would  be  happy to  help  work on  that                                                               
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:32:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said  that he echoes Representative                                                               
Kopp's  comments  and  that  this  issue  puts  him  in  mind  of                                                               
Representative Stutes [HB 259] unsecured  loads bill.  It was his                                                               
recollection,  he said,  that the  committee wanted  to keep  the                                                               
distinction  between someone  being  maimed  or suffering  bodily                                                               
damage  due to  an unsecured  load that  flies off  of a  vehicle                                                               
versus a dented bumper because a rock  flew off of a load.  Those                                                               
are two  distinct circumstances and  correctly should  be treated                                                               
differently.   In this instance,  there are DUIs  wherein someone                                                               
is hurt or killed, and there  are DUIs within which that does not                                                               
take  place,  he   remarked.    There  is  some   value  in  that                                                               
distinction, he  commented, but  he likes  the overall  thrust of                                                               
Amendment 3 because it gets at an inconsistency in the law.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:33:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented  that she is never a  fan of an                                                               
amendment due  to one person,  "it always  just chaps me,  and it                                                               
just reminds  me of (audio  difficulties) and trying to  get that                                                               
sex offender,  you know, amendment  in Senate Bill 91,  you know,                                                               
based on  one friend of hers."   In the event  someone receives a                                                               
third DUI, how  many times have they been  driving drunk, risking                                                               
Alaskans, risking innocent babies and  mothers in their cars, she                                                               
asked.  Alaska currently suffers  from a horrible substance abuse                                                               
problem,  the state  needs to  get tougher,  not weaker,  and she                                                               
will be a no vote on Amendment 3.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:34:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  asked Representative  Kopp whether  he had                                                               
made an  offer to the  maker of  this amendment wherein  he would                                                               
help  refine  the terms  as  to  the  type of  [driving  related]                                                               
violation a person had, whether it  was just a DUI with no bodily                                                               
injury  as opposed  to  a  DUI causing  severe  bodily injury  or                                                               
something along that line.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP advised  that he  had drawn  the distinction                                                               
that  the conversation  is  worth having  if  personal injury  or                                                               
death was  not involved in  the factors  that lead to  the felony                                                               
DUI in the  first place.  He  stated that he is all  for having a                                                               
stringent path  to licensure, whatever  the time  period, because                                                               
he believes  that giving  certain individuals a  path back  and a                                                               
chance for  restoration is  important.  He  reiterated that  if a                                                               
person  has  committed certain  acts  against  people and  harmed                                                               
them, then that is part of  feeling the pain of their victims and                                                               
the person  earned the right to  not have a license  for the rest                                                               
of their life.   The balance in there is  something he is willing                                                               
to look at, but the amendment  does not get the committee to that                                                               
balance, he suggested.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented  that she would be  happy to work                                                               
on something in that direction over the interim.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:36:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN    commented   that   some   of    the   questions                                                               
Representatives  Kopp and  Eastman raised  might be  issues about                                                               
distinguishing what  occurred in  the DUI, but  it may  be beyond                                                               
the scope of Amendment  3.  He opined that it  may require a much                                                               
more detailed statutory change.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:36:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX suggested  that  the  committee hold  this                                                               
bill for  one day  in order  to determine  whether Representative                                                               
Kopp  and she  could come  up  with an  amendment that  satisfied                                                               
everyone's concerns.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:37:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:38:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Amendment  3, and related that she                                                               
will  work  on this  issue  during  the  interim.   Except,  with                                                               
respect to  Representative Reinbold's  comments, she  argued that                                                               
while  one of  her constituents  brought  this issue  to her,  it                                                               
affects many  other people who  are similarly situated and  it is                                                               
not solely for one constituent.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:39:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Ms. Kraly  whether an ex parte domestic                                                               
violence protection  order would qualify as  a barrier condition,                                                               
as  separate  from the  long  term  domestic violence  protection                                                               
order.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY deferred  to Margaret Brody, and offered  that she does                                                               
not believe the ex parte  domestic violence protection orders are                                                               
part of the  barring condition because the person  would have had                                                               
to have been convicted of a  crime of domestic violence for it to                                                               
be a barring crime or condition.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:40:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARGARET  BRODIE, Director,  Division  of  Health care  Services,                                                               
Department  of Health  and Social  Services (DHSS),  responded to                                                               
Representative  Kopp's  question   regarding  ex  parte  domestic                                                               
violence  protection  orders,  and  advised that  Ms.  Kraly  was                                                               
correct, they are not counted. (Audio difficulties.)                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  surmised  that  a   long  term  domestic  violence                                                               
protection order would not count as any sort of a barrier.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY answered that Chair Claman was correct.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:41:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   referred  to  CSSB  81,   Section  8,  [AS                                                               
47.05.310] page 4, lines 5-14, which read as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     AS 47.05.310 is  amended by adding a  new subsection to                                                                    
     read:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (l)  A person  is presumed  to be  acting in  good                                                                    
     faith and  is immune  from civil or  criminal liability                                                                    
     if the person                                                                                                              
               (1)  makes  a  report of  medical  assistance                                                                    
     fraud, abuse, neglect, or exploitation;                                                                                    
               (2)  submits information  to a  civil history                                                                    
     database identified under AS 47.05.330; or                                                                                 
               (3) fails  to hire  or retain an  employee or                                                                    
     unsupervised   volunteer   because  the   employee   or                                                                    
     unsupervised volunteer  is included in a  civil history                                                                    
     database identified under AS 47.05.330.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether this subsection would allow a                                                                 
person who is guilty of the above, but in making the report                                                                     
would be alleviate from their culpability.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY answered, "No."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered a scenario  where the person made the                                                               
report except they falsified the report  or they did not use good                                                               
candor  and painted  a bad  picture through  (indisc.), are  they                                                               
still immune.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY asked Representative Kopp to restate his question.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:43:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that his question relates to AS                                                                     
47.05.310. Criminal History; Criminal History Check; Compliance.                                                                
Under current law, AS 47.05.310(a) read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (a)  If  an  individual  has  been  charged  with,                                                                    
     convicted of,  found not guilty  by reason  of insanity                                                                    
     for, or adjudicated  as a delinquent for,  a crime that                                                                    
     is  inconsistent with  the standards  for licensure  or                                                                    
     certification   established   by  the   department   by                                                                    
     regulation, that  individual may not own  an entity, or                                                                    
     be an officer, director,  partner, member, or principal                                                                    
     of the  business organization that  owns an  entity. In                                                                    
     addition, an entity may not                                                                                                
               (1)  allow  that  individual to  operate  the                                                                    
     entity;                                                                                                                    
               (2)  hire or  retain that  individual at  the                                                                    
     entity  as  an  employee,  independent  contractor,  or                                                                    
     unsupervised volunteer of the entity;                                                                                      
               (3) allow  that individual  to reside  in the                                                                    
     entity if not a recipient of services; or                                                                                  
               (4) allow  that individual  to be  present in                                                                    
     the  entity  if  the   individual  would  have  regular                                                                    
     contact with individuals who  receive services from the                                                                    
     entity, unless  that individual is  a family  member of                                                                    
     or visitor of an  individual who receives services from                                                                    
     the entity.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP then  referred to  CSSB 81,  Section 8,  [AS                                                               
47.05.310] page 4, lines 5-14, which read as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     AS 47.05.310 is  amended by adding a  new subsection to                                                                    
     read:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (l)  A person  is presumed  to be  acting in  good                                                                    
     faith and  is immune  from civil or  criminal liability                                                                    
     if the person                                                                                                              
               (1)  makes  a  report of  medical  assistance                                                                    
     fraud, abuse, neglect, or exploitation;                                                                                    
               (2)  submits information  to a  civil history                                                                    
     database identified under AS 47.05.330; or                                                                                 
               (3) fails  to hire  or retain an  employee or                                                                    
     unsupervised   volunteer   because  the   employee   or                                                                    
     unsupervised volunteer  is included in a  civil history                                                                    
     database identified under AS 47.05.330.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:44:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that  clearly reports are encouraged                                                               
by  offering a  person immunity.   He  asked that  if the  report                                                               
contains false  information in  a portion of  the report,  or its                                                               
entirety, or  in some other  manner that Department of  Law (DOL)                                                               
finds  is clearly  lacking  candor in  the  report, whether  that                                                               
immunity is still there  or is it a judgment call  on the part of                                                               
the DOL.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY responded that the  immunity provisions in this section                                                               
relates to  the submission of  information to the  department for                                                               
purposes of a background check.   Therefore, if someone submitted                                                               
information to  the department that  was not  totally above-board                                                               
or truthful ...                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN    recognized   Representative   Les    Gara   and                                                               
Representative Scott Kawasaki.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:45:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that  if a  person submitted  patently false                                                               
information  or  misrepresented   information,  those  immunities                                                               
would not apply  because the immunity is based upon  a good faith                                                               
application of  the submission  of information.   In the  event a                                                               
person is  playing fast  and loose  with that  information, those                                                               
immunities would not apply, she advised.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, at what  point would an omission of                                                               
relevant details  in the  report surpass  the criminal  and civil                                                               
immunity  being given  to  that  person.   He  further asked  the                                                               
standard against which those omissions would be weighed.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  replied  that  she  was  unsure  she  understood  his                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how  much relevant information could                                                               
be omitted before it would trigger  that the person was no longer                                                               
immune under Sec. 8.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY opined  that the standard would be  one of materialism,                                                               
a  substantial material  of omission.   She  offered that  people                                                               
submit information with honest errors  and honest mistakes and it                                                               
would have  to be  material and significant  to the  issue within                                                               
the report before it would trump that immunity.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:47:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where that standard is located.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether he meant the materiality standard.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN said  that  he did  mean the  materiality                                                               
standard and where it is defined.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  answered that  when  reviewing  the overall  immunity                                                               
information, it  is under AS  47.05.350, and  it is a  common law                                                               
standard.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  assured Representative  Eastman  that  there is  a                                                               
fairly substantial body  of federal common law and  he was unsure                                                               
how much  state common law  was available.   On a  federal level,                                                               
there is an enormous body  of common law regarding the definition                                                               
of  materiality  and  its  application.   He  remarked  that  the                                                               
committee  would  not  want  to  try  to  summarize  those  in  a                                                               
definition here.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:48:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said that  she wanted to  compliment Ms.                                                               
Kraly because "you are so composed  and so focused amongst all of                                                               
the distractions,  and it just  amazes me,  so good job  for that                                                               
... I just  wanted to thank you for really  helping us understand                                                               
this issue."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY answered, "You are welcome."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:49:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that  this is  a bill  dealing with                                                               
background  checks   for  the  department,   he  asked   why  the                                                               
legislature would need  to come back next year  with another bill                                                               
dealing  with background  checks for  the department  when it  is                                                               
already known  that it  is an  issue that  is bigger  than simply                                                               
vital records.   He asked  that the  committee hold the  bill for                                                               
one day because ...                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  instructed Representative Eastman to  make comments                                                               
related to the bill ...                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interrupted and  said that he suspects the                                                               
legislature will  be in session  past tomorrow and there  is some                                                               
interest  in  working further  on  [Amendment  3], and  he  would                                                               
support that effort.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:51:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  moved to  report CSSB  81, labeled                                                               
30-GS1676\D,  as  amended,  out   of  committee  with  individual                                                               
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:51:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Kopp,  Stutes,                                                               
LeDoux, Kreiss-Tomkins,  Reinbold, and  Claman voted in  favor of                                                               
the passage of CSSB 81  out of committee.  Representative Eastman                                                               
voted against it.  Therefore, CSSB 81(JUD) was reported out of                                                                  
the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:52:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:52 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB081 ver D 4.25.18.PDF HJUD 4/25/2018 1:05:00 PM
HJUD 4/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 81
SB081 Transmittal Letter 4.25.18.pdf HJUD 4/25/2018 1:05:00 PM
HJUD 4/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 81
SB081 Sectional Analysis ver D 4.25.18.pdf HJUD 4/25/2018 1:05:00 PM
HJUD 4/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 81
SB081 Amendments #1-3 4.26.18.pdf HJUD 4/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 81
SB081 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.26.18.pdf HJUD 4/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 81