Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/11/2018 01:00 PM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB230 | |
| SB205 | |
| HB387 | |
| HB351 | |
| HB336 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 336 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 387 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2018
2:21 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)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to the collection of customer information by
telecommunications and Internet service providers; and
establishing an unfair trade practice under the Alaska Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 205(L&C)
"An Act relating to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
relating to the public utility regulatory cost charge; and
relating to telecommunications regulations, exemptions, charges,
and rates."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 387
"An Act relating to scheduled substances; relating to the
Controlled Substances Advisory Committee; and authorizing the
attorney general to schedule substances by emergency regulation
or repeal an emergency regulation that scheduled a substance."
- MOVED CSHB 387(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to adjudication of minor delinquency
and the deoxyribonucleic acid identification registration
system; relating to sexual assault in the third degree; relating
to sexual assault in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement
for administrative revocation of a minor's driver's license,
permit, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license for
consumption or possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 351(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 336
"An Act relating to supported decision-making agreements to
provide for decision- making assistance; and amending Rule 402,
Alaska Rules of Evidence."
- MOVED CSHB 336(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET PRIVACY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
04/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/17 (H) L&C, JUD
05/01/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/01/17 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/30/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/18 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/04/18 (H) Moved HB 230 Out of Committee
04/04/18 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/05/18 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 2DNP 3NR
04/05/18 (H) DP: STUTES, WOOL
04/05/18 (H) DNP: SULLIVAN-LEONARD, BIRCH
04/05/18 (H) NR: JOSEPHSON, KNOPP, KITO
04/11/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 205
SHORT TITLE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION/EXEMPTIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MEYER
02/19/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/18 (S) L&C
02/27/18 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/27/18 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/18 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/08/18 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/18 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/02/18 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/18 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/03/18 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/03/18 (S) Moved CSSB 205(L&C) Out of Committee
04/03/18 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/18 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
04/04/18 (S) DP: COSTELLO, MICCICHE, MEYER
04/04/18 (S) NR: GARDNER
04/09/18 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/09/18 (S) VERSION: CSSB 205(L&C)
04/11/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 387
SHORT TITLE: AG SCHEDULE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) JUD, FIN
03/16/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/18 (H) HSS, JUD
03/06/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/08/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/18 (H) Moved CSHB 351(HSS) Out of Committee
03/08/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/09/18 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 6DP
03/09/18 (H) DP: JOHNSTON, CLAMAN, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-
LEONARD, KITO, TARR
04/06/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 336
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
02/07/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/18 (H) HSS, JUD
03/01/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/08/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/18 (H) Moved CSHB 336(HSS) Out of Committee
03/08/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/09/18 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 6DP
03/09/18 (H) DP: JOHNSTON, CLAMAN, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-
LEONARD, KITO, TARR
04/09/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/09/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 230, presented the
legislation as prime sponsor.
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff
Representative Harriet Drummond
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 230, offered a
sectional analysis and answered questions.
JONATHAN CLEMENT, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial and Fair Business Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 230, answered a
question.
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 205, presented the
legislation as prime sponsor.
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff
Senator Kevin Meyer
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 205, presented the
sectional analysis.
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director
Alaska Telecom Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 205, offered the
"SB 205 Telecommunications Statutes Simply & Modernize"
PowerPoint Presentation.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 387, presented
Version D and offered its sectional analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 351, answered
questions.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 351, discussed
Amendment 1.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 351, answered
questions.
JUDY JESSEN, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 351, answered a
question.
HANS RODVIK, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 336, answered a
question.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:21:21 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:21 p.m. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins, LeDoux, Kopp, Reinbold, and Stutes were present at the
call to order. Representative Eastman arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 230-TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET PRIVACY
2:21:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act relating to the collection of
customer information by telecommunications and Internet service
providers; and establishing an unfair trade practice under the
Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act."
2:22:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, Alaska State Legislature,
advised that in March 2017, the United States Congress passed a
bill that repealed an FCC regulation known as "Protecting the
Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication
Services." She explained that this regulation mandates that
internet service providers (ISPs) must receive permission from
users before harvesting personal data. The repeal of this
regulation allowed an opening for ISPs and telecommunication
companies to collect data without the consent of the customer
whose data was being collected. She stressed that there are
absolutely no accusations here that any of Alaska's
telecommunication companies or ISPs are doing this, and they
have been clear in letting her office know that they do not use
this type of trade practice. However, she remarked, there is a
need to protect the privacy of Alaskans by solidifying into
statute a civil penalty that can be used on a telecommunications
company or ISP if they are found to have been doing so by an
Alaska court. This legislation implements a new section under
AS 45.48.800 to establish the collection of personal data and
information by an ISP or telecommunication company as an unfair
trade practice. She further advised that this legislation will
keep Alaskans' information safe and will allow the state to
bring action against violators of the new section, and hopefully
it will never be used.
2:24:14 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff, Representative Harriet Drummond,
Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased the sectional analysis as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1. Establishing the collecting of personal
information by Telecommunications companies or
Internet service providers without the consent of the
customer or user of service is considered (1) Effect
on public interest (2) Not a reasonable method of
conducting or preserving business (3) is an unfair
trade and deceptive practice of business operations.
Sec. 2 AS 45.48 is amended by adding a new section
to read: Article 6A. Information Disclosure
Sec. 45.48.800 Approval required for Information
disclosure. Telecommunications Company or Internet
service providers are not allowed to collect personal
information without the expressed written approval of
the customer. Telecommunications Company or Internet
service providers may not discriminate a paying
customer solely because a customer denied the right
for the Telecommunications Company or Internet service
providers to collect information.
Telecommunications Company is defined as Cable,
telegraph, telephone, or broadcasting.
Sec. 3 AS 45.50.471 Adds a new paragraph AS
45.48.800 explaining violation of credit/debit card
information sharing now includes Internet and
telecommunications providers.
Sec. 4 AS 45.48.800 Definition of "Telecommunication
service" and establishes an effective date.
2:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the type of personal information
being collected because if she googles Antarctica, for example,
and the next thing she knows is that advertisements for
vacations in that area pop up on her screen. She questioned
whether that is the type of personal information being collected
that would no longer be available to harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that Representative LeDoux's
example takes place through Facebook's or Google's algorithms,
and this is not about the software companies that run those
programs on the internet, but rather it is about the people who
send that information to our homes and offices initially. She
explained that this legislation is for those service providers
to whom consumers pay their bills for internet access, and she
is trying to keep sensitive information out of the hands of
those providers. She said she does not know what can be done
about issues such as Representative LeDoux's example, although
the federal government is trying to deal with Facebook and its
privacy issues. This bill is simply about the GCIs, the ACSs,
the APTIs, and the other service providers in Alaska because the
FCC withdrew this rule that protects consumer privacy.
Therefore, she pointed out, the states need to step in, and many
state legislatures have stepped up to help ensure their
constituents' privacy from "their ISPs prying fingers."
MR. FITZGERALD added that the sponsor's office has information
from the Council of State Governments and other states with
legislation similar to HB 230, which advised that many areas in
the country have only one internet service provider for certain
areas. Under those circumstances, he said, a person has
relatively no option as far as their information being used and
shared, which is one of the reasons for this legislation.
2:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an example of the information
Mr. Fitzgerald was discussing, what information is being shared,
and whether it includes her social security number.
MR. FITZGERALD answered that the definition of personal
information varies, and the sponsor requested a memorandum from
Legislative Legal and Research Services on that definition, and
issues such as state identification numbers, social security
numbers, billing information, and so forth.
2:30:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned how GCI or ACS would even
receive her state identification number.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded that all of this information
travels from her keyboard through the software, such as Facebook
or a shopping website, and the hardware that is provided by the
person's internet service provider to get that signal to her.
Those entities have the ability to "grab that information along
the way," never mind what Facebook marketing is doing with it as
that is dealt with in a different manner. Many of these devices
have the capability to retain the memory of account numbers,
social security numbers, credit card information, medical
information, and online purchases, she advised. The passage of
HB 230 would put into law that the telecommunication companies
and internet service providers must be given consent by the user
of any service or device before they can sell, trade, or gift
the information entered by a private citizen. She offered that
the entity may already have this information because all of this
information passes through its equipment and at any point it can
reach in and grab the information. This legislation directs
that the entities cannot grab the information without
permission. This is something that can easily take place since
the consumer pays the service provider hundreds of dollars in
fees every month, and in exchange it needs to get permission to
use any information that might be harvested.
2:32:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it was likely the service
providers have a form that is similar to form she see when
logging onto the state internet stating, "You agree to the
terms."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered, "Probably yes."
2:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this bill deals solely
with internet service providers and it has nothing to do with
software or apps.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND replied that this legislation is solely
about telecommunication companies and internet service
providers, "not the Microsoft, Facebook Zuckerberg's of the
world," unless Microsoft is an internet service provider. Her
only concern, she remarked, is with Alaska's internet service
providers and the impacts of protecting the privacy of Alaska's
citizens through this legislation.
2:35:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is any way to "get
them on the hook," as she would look forward to an amendment to
target these people and in dealing with the software aspect as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that this is a good
conversation to have and AT&T and GCI are both telecommunication
companies that lease the use of phones to Alaskans, for example.
In the event the legislature directs those entities to protect
Alaskans' privacy, they will need to come up with a manner in
which to protect that privacy or obtain a customer's permission
before using any of the data. This legislation is aimed at the
closest people it can impact, and AT&T and GCI are close at
hand, she explained that those are the people this legislation
is talking to, not Microsoft or Facebook.
2:36:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that she was unsure whether it was
real, but there were contracts between AT&T and NSA all over
Facebook. She offered that could be a broader conversation that
"they are working with or whether they are not. I think that
that may be another intriguing aspect of this conversation."
2:37:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that it would probably be in
the best interests of the committee to have a definition of
personal information somewhere in the bill, or at least point to
a definition somewhere else that will apply. He commented that
"As I look at just personal information, it would seem to me
from just reading the bill that if I don't want to give my full
name to an ISP, that I don't have to. And, if they want to bill
me they are going to have to find some other way, some non-
personal information way, if I refuse to give consent to give
that kind of information." He asked the impact the sponsor
foresees as to the passage of this bill having on law
enforcement. For example, if someone is committing crimes and
the ISP is aware, except it is not allowed to keep any of ...
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Representative Eastman had passed his
one-minute time limit, and said that the question is, what is
the impact on law enforcement.
MR. FITZGERALD replied that the sponsor has looked into that
question and it is awaiting an official response from the
Legislative Legal and Research Services drafter and a legal
opinion. However, he said, it is his informal knowledge that
court ordered warrants are specific and this legislation does
not stop any warrant from being issued if there is suspicion of
illegal activity taking place through any sort of ISP or any
individual using their own personal computer "for things." He
said he would provide the committee with any information he
receives.
2:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that that did not answer his
question, and said that the bill read that it is illegal for the
telecommunications service provider to collect a person's
information. In the event he was a member of law enforcement
"and I go with that search warrant to collect the information
from you, you would have first, as the ISP, had to have
collected that information to begin with. And, if you don't
hold onto it in some way, which is usually called 'collecting'
then there may be nothing for the search warrant to go back to.
You may say, hey, we'd like to help you but we just don't know
any information to help you out with your search warrant."
MR. FITZGERALD clarified that this legislation makes it illegal
to collect information without the user's consent. That being
said, he opined that (audio difficulties) reason to suspect
illegal activity taking place with an individual's computer,
then law enforcement would be able to go through the ISP and
serve a warrant for a search.
2:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the violations "in the memo
you provided," wherein it spells out that for each violation,
the person must be subject to a penalty of not less than $1,000
fine or more than $25,000 fine. He asked how that might impact
a willingness for the companies to stay in this market if they
will now be liable, especially if it is an accidental technical
error that results in 5,000 customers being affected. In the
event each one of those customers is a violation, that could put
a company out of business, impact insurance rates, or customer
service charges, he said.
MR. FITZGERALD responded that the sponsor does not believe the
risk of a company that does not handle their customer's privacy
diligently should be exempt from penalties.
2:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the intent of this legislation
is that no information, such as a phone number or address, can
be retained by an internet service provider or a
telecommunication provider unless they have the consumer's
consent.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded that obviously the internet
service provider requires some information from the consumer in
order to provide the service. Information such as a consumers'
telephone number, address, credit card numbers, bank account
number with which the consumer pays their invoices, and anything
else collected by that service provider must stay private. She
said that she assumes the service provider would want that
information and that they should be able to keep it private in
order to provide their services. Beyond that, she explained,
service providers do not get to profit from collecting that
information, or share it with marketing companies, or any other
entity, without the consumer's permission. She stated that in
her opinion it should simply be that when a person signs up for
service with GCI, AT&T, or any other service provider, there is
a simple "yes or no" box to check indicating whether the
consumer's personal information can be shared.
2:44:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that this bill is not so much about
the collection of data, but what actions are taken with the
personal information data.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered in the affirmative.
2:44:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he has served many search
warrants for pagers and cells phones, and on internet service
providers for particular IP addresses which shows associations,
dates and times, exactly when the criminal act occurred, and
when all the communication stopped because "the deed is done so
these people do not need to talk to each other anymore." (Audio
difficulties) wanting to make sure the bill sponsor's intent is
more about commercially selling a consumer's information and
being pulled into whatever marketing someone else offered.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered in the affirmative.
2:45:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 230.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Jonathan Clement, Department of
Law, (audio difficulties) having on law enforcement.
2:46:50 PM
JONATHAN CLEMENT, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial and
Fair Business Section, Department of Law (DOL), advised that he
works in the area of consumer protection and Representative
Eastman's question would be better directed to the Department of
Law, Criminal Division. He offered to work with the bill
sponsor to have someone available to answer the question at the
next hearing.
2:47:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public hearing on HB 230.
2:47:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, Article 1, Sec. 22, which read as follows:
Right of Privacy.
The right of the people to privacy is recognized and
shall not be infringed. The legislature shall
implement this section. [Amended 1972]
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she believes this is a
bill that could possibly be agreed upon because legislators
swore to defend the constitution.
2:47:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he values the intent of
this legislation, he appreciates the protection for privacy
being pursued, and that his questions were in the form of
devil's advocate because attorneys do not always catch where
legislators are trying to go with legislation.
[HB 230 was held over.]
SB 205-TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION/EXEMPTIONS
2:48:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; and relating to telecommunications
regulations, exemptions, charges, and rates."
2:49:24 PM
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, advised that all
of the telecommunication companies support SB 205, which is rare
because this business is competitive with 15 different telephone
companies in Alaska. The intent of this legislation is to
modernize the state's telecommunication statutes because
technology has changed and consumer preferences for telephones
have changed extensively since the laws were written in 1990.
In fact, he advised, it is estimated that only 40 percent of
homes continue to maintain a landline. He explained that this
legislation removes the outdated regulation of long-distance
competition and remedies the current distortion that exists as
to which companies pay the regulatory costs charge. Under SB
205, he said, all of the companies will pay the RCC charges,
thereby spreading the cost amongst all of the carriers and not
to just a few as it is currently. He related that this bill
also removes the requirement for the RCA to designate carriers
of last resort (COLR) because it is unnecessary and results in
unfairly imposing burdens on one carrier in a market. All
carriers in a market should be treated equally unless there is a
compelling reason to do otherwise. Another reason the carrier
of last resort (COLR) is no longer necessary is because there
are state statutes and regulations in place at the state and
federal level that will remain and prohibit carriers from
discontinuing a service without the permission of the RCA.
2:51:36 PM
SENATOR MEYER reiterated that SB 205 simply removes obsolete
inequity regulatory burdens while maintaining the obligation to
provide landline service. The legislation provides efficiencies
for both the industry and RCA by allowing all parties to focus
on relevant regulatory activity, and it preserves the public
interest oversight role that RCA has today. He cautioned that
having been with this bill for a while, it is a technical bill
and experts are available to better answer questions.
2:52:24 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, paraphrased the
sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 Municipal powers and duties. AS 29.35.070
Public Utilities. Section 11 repeals AS 42.05.810,
therefore it is removed from reference in this section
of the statute.
MS. MORLEDGE advised that Section 1 was necessary because Sec.
11, AS 42.05.810 is repealed; therefore, the reference to that
statute is in Section 1.
Section 2 Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act. AS
42.05.141 Adds two new subsections (e) and (f) to the
general powers and duties of the RCA. These
subsections state that the Commission may not
designate a local exchange carrier or an interexchange
carrier as the carrier of last resort, and that the
Commission may designate an eligible
telecommunications carrier consistent with the federal
code that allows for federal subsidies under the
Universal Service Fund.
A carrier of last resort is a telecommunications
company that commits (or is required by law) to
provide service to any customer in a service area that
requests it, even if serving that customer would not
be economically viable at prevailing rates.
The Universal Service Fund is a system of
telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the
U.S. Federal Communications Commission intended to
promote universal access to telecommunications
services at reasonable and affordable rates for all
consumers.
Section 3 Annual Report. This section requires the
RCA to submit an annual report to the Legislature
detailing the activity and costs related to regulating
each type of telecommunications carrier.
Section 4 Amends AS 42.05.254(a) from the previous
version of the bill that eliminated the Regulatory
Cost Charge (RCC). This section maintains the current
RCC funding mechanism of calculating and assessing the
charge and applies it to all telecommunications
companies.
Sections 5 & 6 both relate to implementing the
Regulatory Cost Charge for all
telecommunications companies.
Section 7 Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act. AS
42.05.711 Exemptions. This section exempts
telecommunications carriers from the Act except for
the following provisions:
AS 42.05.141(f) New section in the bill
(Section 2 above)
AS 42.05.221 Requiring a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity
AS 42.05.231 Provision for applying for the
certificate
AS 42.05.241 Conditions of issuing/denial of a
certificate
AS 42.05.251 Allow public utilities to obtain a
permit for the use of streets in municipalities
AS 42.05.254 Regulatory cost charge
AS 42.05.261 Prohibits a public utility from
discontinuing or abandoning service for which a
certificate has been issued
AS 42.05.271 Allows the RCA to amend, modify,
suspend or revoke a certificate
AS 42.05.281 Prohibiting a sale, lease,
transfer or inheritance of certificate without RCA
permission
AS 42.05.296 Requirements for providing
telephone services for certain impaired subscribers
AS 42.05.306 Allows discounted rates for
customers receiving benefits from a social services
assistance program administered by the state or
federal government
AS 42.05.631 Allows a public utility to
exercise the power of eminent domain
AS 42.05.641 Extends RCA's jurisdiction to
public utilities operating in a municipality
AS 42.05.830 Requires the RCA to establish
exchange access charges to be paid by long distance
carriers to compensate local exchange carriers for the
cost of originating and terminating long distance
services
AS 42.05.850 Relating to the administration of
access charges by an exchange carrier association
AS 42.05.840 Allows the RCA to establish a
universal service fund
AS 42.05.860 Prohibits a carrier from
restricting the resale of telecommunications services
Section 8 AS 42.05.820 No Municipal Regulation. In
addition to a long distance telephone company, this
section amends AS 42.05.820 to add 'local exchange
carrier' that is exempted in whole or in part from
this chapter from being regulated by a municipality.
Section 9 AS 42.05.890 Definitions. This section
defines "local exchange carrier," "long distance
telephone company," and "long distance telephone
service.
Section 10 Relates to implementing Section 4, the
Regulatory Cost Charge.
Section 11 Repealers. This section repeals the
following provisions, as the changing nature of the
industry and market conditions have rendered them
obsolete:
AS 42.05.325 Registration and regulation of
alternate operator services
AS 42.05.800 Findings
AS 42.05.810 Competition unnecessary in
today's market
2:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that it is unusual when all
of the telecommunication companies can actually agree on
anything, which obviously means the bill is great for the
telecommunication companies. She asked how great the bill is
for the consumer because when reviewing the bill and sectional
analysis, a person would have to be an expert in
telecommunications law in order to actually understand the
legislation. She opined that the telecommunication companies
receive subsidies from "someone, maybe it's the state or the
federal government" to make sure that the companies provide
services for areas which normally would not receive services.
It appears that this bill will take away the guarantee of
services because it is doing away with the carrier of last
resort, she said. In the event it is taking away the guarantee
for the services, she asked whether the telecommunication
companies will still receive the subsidies, and if so, why would
they continue receiving the subsidies if they are not
guaranteeing the service.
SENATOR MEYER responded that the committee will hear a
presentation from the Alaska Telephone Association, which
encompasses all 15 telephone companies in Alaska as to how those
subsidies work. There will be some savings to the consumer now
that the RCC charges are spread across all of the different
companies, and he could not say the amount of the savings.
First of all, he explained, all areas will still be covered as
required by the State of Alaska and the FCC, and he opined that
the subsidies would probably still continue to whoever is
providing that service in those remote areas.
3:01:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX argued that if the RCA does not have the
authority to keep carriers in these remote communities, what
guarantee is there that the carriers will remain in the remote
communities because those communities probably are not much of a
profit sector.
SENATOR MEYER clarified that the RCA will continue to have
jurisdiction over the carriers and it will make certain the
remote communities are covered. Even if the RCA does not do it,
he said, the FCC will require that coverage, but the experts can
better answer the question.
3:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she knows there are various
consumer advocacy groups, for example advocacy airline groups
advising which is a good airline company, and asked whether
there is any such group with respect to telecommunication
service, and if so, she would like to hear from those groups.
SENATOR MEYER answered that he did not have the answer.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that occasionally he does see consumer
reports giving advice about all of the Lower-48 telephone
companies, but they do not seem to mention Alaska's telephone
companies.
3:02:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stressed that this is an extremely
complicated statute and she was unsure whether, at the end of
the day, most of the 60 legislators will actually understand
what they are voting on in this particular statute. Clearly,
she said, it benefits the telecommunication companies but she
was unsure that it benefits, or at least does not harm, the
consumers, and she would like an answer.
SENATOR MEYER commented that that is a fair question because
legislators are elected to benefit their constituencies and not
the telecommunication industry. Letters are contained within
the committee packet from previous and current commissioners who
like where this bill is going, and other commissioners have
concerns. He opined that after hearing from the Alaska
Telecommunication Association (ATA) and the RCA, Representative
LeDoux will be better able to make that decision.
3:04:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out that she is disappointed
about what took place on the Senate Floor with HB 140, "getting
rid of the regulation, and so you guys come and talk about
regulation and then you go and get rid of oversights." She
stressed that that is a huge contention for her currently,
(audio difficulties) analysis so people who do want just a quick
glance at what this bill does, it does basically de-regulate
telecommunication companies in this state according to the RCA.
However, (audio difficulties) with regard to the RCA, "I think
they are very expensive, it's a very big -- you know, I worked
with them as Reg Review Chair and I think they're expensive, and
I'm not sure that they always have the best interests of the
consumer at hand." She offered that she is on the fence with
regard "to some of this stuff right now," and asked about
subsidies without providing the service because she may not have
all of the details, but it sounds like "big government waste."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Senator Meyer had responded to the
subsidy question to the best of his ability.
3:06:17 PM
[CHAIR CLAMAN, in reference to Representative Eastman's question
regarding slide 2 of the PowerPoint yet to be presented, advised
Representative Eastman that the committee would not discuss the
PowerPoint presentation until it had been presented.]
3:07:02 PM
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director, Alaska
Telecommunications Association (ATA), pointed out that the
legislation is technical with many details and that many answers
to the questions offered today are contained within the
PowerPoint. She suggested the committee keep in mind that this
legislation is solely about landline service and long-distance
access through landline service. This legislation is about
modernizing the statutes adopted in 1990, the "in the pin drop
era where they were just starting to compete for long-distance."
She paraphrased the "SB 205 Telecommunications Statutes Simply &
Modernize" PowerPoint Presentation as follows:
3:08:13 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 2, "Unanimous Support for SB 205"
and advised that the legislation is supported by all ATA
members, which include the following entities:
Adak Eagle Enterprises
Alaska Communications
Alaska Telephone Company
Arctic Slope Telephone
Association Cooperative
ASTAC Wireless
AT&T
Bettles Telephone
Bristol Bay Cellular Partnership
Bristol Bay Telephone
Cooperative
Bush-Tell
Copper Valley Telephone
Cooperative
Copper Valley Wireless
Cordova Telephone
Cooperative
Cordova Wireless
GCI
Interior Telephone
Mukluk Telephone
Ketchikan Public Utilities
Matanuska Telephone
Association
North Country Telephone
Nushagak Cooperative
OTZ Telephone Cooperative
OTZ Wireless
Summit Telephone Company
TelAlaska Cellular
United Utilities
Windy City Wireless
Yukon Telephone Company
MS. O'CONNOR said, (audio difficulties.) "I appreciate
Commissioner Pickett's frankness, and we agree wholeheartedly
with his characterization of this activity as without value."
(Audio difficulties) SB 205 to public comment, such as this,
given from the commission from the dais over the past two-to-
three years.
3:09:42 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 3, "Transformation," and
paraphrased as follows:
Telecommunications have changed completely since
many of Alaska's telecom statutes were adopted in
1990.
The 1996 Telecom Act completely transformed the
marketplace and started an evolution toward light
touch regulation.
Landline and long-distance use is dramatically
reduced.
Long distance revenues reduced from $64M to $16M
between 2006-2016.
Only 48% of households still have a landline.
Landline services are still important, and will
continue under SB205.
MS. O'CONNOR (Audio difficulties.) She said she will "hit this
again and again today" because she has heard this question over
and over, which puzzles her because this legislation does not
degrade landline service. That, she explained, is not the
commitment of the companies in the Alaska Telecommunications
Association (ATA), many of which are rural cooperatives and some
are statewide providers. Simply because a person is talking on
a cell phone, they are only wireless to the tower, and then the
person is on the landline network; or if a person is using their
ISP, that is also on the landline networks. She stressed that
the landline network is critical and it will continue under SB
205, ATA is saying that there are a lot of resources that could
be saved by providers to let "us focus on better services" and
by the RCA to let it focus on more pressing matters.
3:11:50 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 4, "Landline Service will Continue"
and advised that this is a list of some of the rules that
require it, and paraphrased as follows:
Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity prevents
abandonment of service without permission from the RCA
and the FCC.
Eligible telecommunications carrier designations
require service.
Federal and state rules require provision of service
upon reasonable request.
April 6, 2018 DC Circuit Court affirmed FCC
requirement that companies continue to provide voice
services.
MS. O'CONNOR (audio difficulties) every utility must apply to
the RCA to obtain a certificate before it begins operation. The
RCA must find that a company is fit, willing, and able to
provide service. She explained that before a company can leave
service in an area, it must go to the RCA and request
permission, and the RCA must find that it is in the public
interest for the company to depart (audio difficulty) rarely, if
ever, granted. This legislation does not impact the certificate
of authority of the commission, the commission has authority
over the "eligible telecommunications carrier designation,"
which assigns a service area and authorizes a company to receive
federal funding. Last week, she related, a Federal D.C. Circuit
Court decision came down that companies must continue to provide
voice services even in the absence of support or a subsidy.
3:13:16 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 5, "Universal Service Funds," noted
that questions came up this week regarding universal service
funds, and paraphrased as follows:
Due to both federal and state USF support, Alaskans
have remarkable access to communications across
Alaska, and deployment of improved infrastructure is
accelerating.
Without Universal Service Funds telecom networks in
Alaska would not exist in many areas.
Alaska's Universal Service Fund (AUSF) is a critical
component for sustaining voice service and improving
broadband service statewide.
The RCA has full jurisdiction over the Alaska
Universal Service Fund.
MS. O'CONNOR noted that a question was asked regarding what has
happened to those funds, (audio difficulties) without those
funds, there would not be communication networks in most of
Alaska, it is that expensive. Universal service is similar to
the original Rural Electrification Act created to make certain
everyone was connected to the electric grid, and she described
that it was very effective. Universal service is funded by a
sur charge on everyone's bills in the nation, and those funds
are targeted to the highest cost areas. Naturally, she advised,
with Alaska being 22 percent of the United States land mass,
remote and rugged, a lot of those funds do come to Alaska
proportionally, not a large amount of the whole pot, but it is
important funding. She related that it is reported on
extensively to both the federal and state commissions, "we're
very accountable," and the RCA has complete authority over the
state universal service fund and dictates what reporting and
information it wants from companies (audio difficulties).
3:15:02 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 6, "COLR Designation vs. COLR
Support," (audio difficulties) in the weeds, but it is important
to explain the slide clearly, and paraphrased as follows:
Carrier of last resort (COLR) designation requires a
company to serve a certain area. (So do Certificate,
ETC and USF rules)
Carrier of last resort (COLR) designation is funded in
some areas of the state by a portion of the Alaska
Universal Service Fund.
The RCA is considering Docket R-18-001 "Consideration
for the Full Repeal of Alaska Universal Service Fund
Regulations."
The stated timeline to eliminate all funds, including
COLR support, is Jan. 1, 2019.
Industry has responded to the RCA invitation for
comment by proposing two different paths forward for
the AUSF both eliminating COLR support.
There is no disconnect between eliminating COLR
designation and corresponding COLR support. The RCA
has made it clear that any possible path forward for
the AUSF will have a new funding structure. We do not
expect the old structure to continue.
Regardless of the RCA's decision in the AUSF docket,
all rules requiring landline service will remain in
place.
MS. O'CONNOR advised that the carrier of last resort (COLR)
designation says that a company must serve, but ATA also has the
certificate, the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC), and
(audio difficulties) it is by far the only thing requiring a
company to serve. The designation is funded in some areas of
the state to some companies but not all, and that designation
allows them to receive a portion of the Alaska Universal Service
Fund. Currently, she offered, the RCA has a docket opened
titled, "Consideration of the Full Repeal of the Alaska
Universal Service Fund," this has been under discussion at the
RCA to eliminate this fund (audio difficulties). Particularly,
she offered, the focus has been the COLR support, which the
commission has been critical, and the ATA submitted two
different proposals for how this reform might take place, and in
both cases, there will not be explicit COLR support. Therefore,
when ATA was drafting SB 205, it knew that it was in the record
that COLR support would probably be completely revamped,
possibly done away with, and the commission has an active docket
wherein there was an eight-hour hearing last Monday. Naturally,
she related, if a company is not receiving the funding, ATA
thought the designation did not need to be there either.
Conversely, she said, there is no company that will give up
responsibility and still receive funding, in fact, even if this
funding goes away, the companies will still be obligated to
continue these duties. No subsidy is being given when no
responsibility is being performed, she advised.
3:17:07 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 7, "41 States Have Reduced
Regulation," and advised that 41 other states have eliminated or
reduced telecommunication regulation. Although there is
variation in the details of what the other states have done, it
generally means that telecommunication companies manage their
own rates, as half of the companies in Alaska do today, she
said. Currently, approximately 90 percent of Alaska's
population is already served by a company that can raise its
local rates without permission from the RCA. However, she
commented, rates have not risen dramatically, and even if the
rates were to raise, there is a federal rule limiting that
increase and the maximum it could possibly go is $49 and change.
Most landline rates are in the $30-$35 range so it would
theoretically be an approximate $14 increase, but most companies
have not raised rates in five years. Part of the obligation
under the federal funding is for those rates to be reasonable,
and should the rates raise to the cap and someone cannot afford
it, there is a federal lifeline program that would support that
customer and they would probably qualify for a free phone.
3:18:24 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 8, titled "Rate Regulation - It
Depends Who You Are," and paraphrased as follows:
Cooperatives, with the approval of their members, and
municipal telcos manage their own tariffs. All other
companies must maintain a tariff at the RCA.
90% of Alaskans are served by company which can manage
its own rates.
But for the remainder, review & approval for rate
changes varies, with timelines as long as 420 days.
This limits the introduction of new offerings due to
the expense of preparing and supporting tariff
filings.
SB205 adopts the cooperative model for tariffs and
rate changes.
MS. O'CONNOR explained that rate regulation is quite a patchwork
of obligation (audio difficulties) and the RCA has complained
that under existing regulation and statutory timelines, one
company might make an informational filing that has to be
drafted, reviewed, sent to the RCA, and the RCA must accept it
without any revision because it has no authority to make that
change. Or, she related, it could be a more traditional filing
which takes 30-45 days and in some cases a company might have to
create a Rate Case that is extremely detailed and it can take
over 420 days (audio difficulties) remember, only related to
landline and long-distance service. Instead of this, she said,
ATA is proposing that all companies be on the same basis as the
cooperatives today where they manage their own rates, are
answerable to their own customers, and the commission's consumer
protection division would still be there for quality complaints
and so forth. Co-ops have operated in this manner for many
years and approximately one-half of the companies in the state
already do this as it has been successful as it is much more
efficient, she said.
3:19:42 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 9-10, titled "Burden of Rate
Regulation," and advised the following are two examples of
telephone companies, and paraphrased as follows:
Summit Telephone Company
Family-owned serving Dalton Highway and Chena Hot
Springs Road
Needs to replace obsolete technology
Tried to change the tariff to focus resources on
broadband.
"This process of educating the RCA causes the
expenditure/depletion of Summit's already limited
resources while what I need to do with those funds is
extend FTTP (fiber to the premise) and wireless
Broadband/Middle Mile facilities to our subscribers.
Soon after I filed the Tariff Notice - I withdrew it
in that it immediately became apparent that the RCA
process was a Tar Baby that would deplete Summit of
funds needed for the extension of Broadband to its
subscribers."
Roger Shofstall, Owner of Summit Telephone Company
MS. O'CONNOR advised that the Summit Telephone Company is a
small company with a federal mandate to provide broadband along
the Dalton Highway and out toward Chena Hot Springs. The
company was trying to change its tariff to focus its resources
on broadband, and the above is a quote from its owner who
eventually decided to "muddle along with the obsolete
technology."
Alaska Communications
"We have 4 local exchange tariffs with a mixture of
tariff rules that apply?Each time we make a tariff
change we must do basically 5 times for the local
exchange since one study area has different rules to
follow. We also have an long-distance tariff which has
even different rules. When filing 5 different tariffs
plus a long-distance tariff, it simply is not an
efficient business practice especially when these
regulations do not apply across all other carriers."
-Lisa Phillips, Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs and
Risk Management
MS. O'CONNOR offered that Alaska Communications is a large
company, it is under the same burden, and it is managing five
different tariffs with a range of rates all related to landline
service in different areas of the state.
3:20:36 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 11, titled "Tariffs Filings 2017,"
and advised that the information is from the Regulatory
Commission's 2017 Annual Report, and paraphrased as follows:
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report
MS. O'CONNOR (audio difficulties) accept and review them, this
is a lot of expense by providers that could be better spent on
service, and a lot of expense by the commission when it could
better use its time on other issues. She opined that these may
be the filings Commissioner Robert Pickett may have been
referring when he said, "How is this doing anybody any good?"
3:21:08 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 12, titled, "Obsolete Statutes,"
and advised that the legislation repeals obsolete statutes
related to long-distance companies, and paraphrased as follows:
Long distance competition statutes at 42.05.800-810
(adopted in 1990) require the RCA to manage
competition in the long-distance market.
Even though these statutes were made obsolete by the
1996 Telecom Act, they are still on the books in
Alaska.
They require tariff filings and reporting.
SB 205 removes outdated regulation of long
distance retail competition.
MS. O'CONNOR explained that these obsolete statutes date back to
before the 1996 Telecommunications Act and were actually pre-
empted by that Act, but they are still in the statute books so
they are generating filings and generating reports that are
wasting everyone's resources.
3:21:31 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 13, titled "Consumer Protection,"
and offered that consumer protection still exists, and
paraphrased as follows:
Strong consumer protections exist today
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC)
RCA Consumer Protection & Information Section
Attorney General Consumer Protection Unit
FCC Consumer Complaint Center
SB 205 maintains these protections.
MS. O'CONNOR offered that the Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity (CPCN) and the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
(ETC) designation, both require a company to offer service
throughout its service area and to not withdraw service without
permission. There are FCC rules requiring the above and SB 205
does not change this rule. This legislation does not de-
regulate telecommunications, and companies are still required to
submit to RCA's authority about where they serve, and when, and
if they stop serving, she pointed out.
3:22:11 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 14, titled "Benefits to Consumers,"
and paraphrased as follows:
Increases incentive for companies to offer new service
bundles
Focuses resources on consumer services
Spreads cost of regulation equitably, with support
from all companies.
SB 205 does not include new taxes, it corrects
existing unfair assessment of regulatory costs.
MS. O'CONNOR advised that it increases the incentive for
companies to offer new service bundles. The companies (audio
difficulties) serving areas where they have to make the most
extensive tariff filings, they just simply do not make changes
even if it is something their consumers desire because it is too
expensive to go through the process. The resources that ATA
could save would be better focused on consumer services. She
related that there is a change that corrects an existing problem
with the RCA's budget as the statutes have become outdated,
according to existing statute, the co-operatives are not paying
the regulatory cost charge of which is the RCA's self-funding
mechanism. She pointed out that that leaves the other one-half
of the companies paying the full burden of the RCA's oversight
authority. Telecommunication oversight is still taking place
and this bill would fix that problem because all companies would
access the regulatory cost charge, which would lower it for the
companies that are currently carrying the entire burden.
Everyone agreed to this, she said, there was no objection and
she gave kudos to "my members" for recognizing the inequity. It
was mentioned that SB 205 is bringing a new tax, which she
described as a misunderstanding of this provision in that this
is not a new tax, it simply corrects an existing inequity.
3:23:39 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned to slide 15, titled "Right-touch
Regulation," (audio difficulties) landline and long-distance
service, and paraphrased as follows:
SB 205 maintains RCA oversight
Removes obsolete statutes & exempts from many
provisions in 42.05 which are outdated or apply to
other industries
Adopts cooperative model for rates
Requires RCA and FCC approval before discontinuance of
service
Reduces cost and delay of regulation for RCA &
providers
Resolves existing inequity in the RCA's budget
process
MS. O'CONNOR advised that the legislation peels away obsolete
statutes and allows companies and the commission to operate more
efficiently, as many of the statutes under AS 42.05 apply
generally to the operation of the commission and those would
continue. She said that others apply to other industries so
they are not applicable to telecommunication. She related that
SB 205 will allow companies to focus on better service for
Alaskans, and allow the RCA to focus on the important work
before the RCA because it is also the regulatory commission for
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS), electric issues, water, waste,
and natural gas industries. These are all fully regulated
utilities, she offered, which are structured (audio
difficulties) nation in order to function well. The 1996
Telecommunications Act changed telecommunications and put it on
a path toward competition, innovation, and right touch
regulation. She asked that the Alaska legislature tailor its
statutes to ensure service continues, but stops wasting
resources on work that is without value. When the RCA was asked
to provide its opinion on SB 205, it cited concerns about its
budget and those concerns have been completely resolved by
correcting the RCC mechanism. She related that it claimed
landline service will be threatened, but this is simply not
accurate because landline service will be required under multi-
state and federal rules unless it is found to not be in the
public interest by state and federal regulators. That, she
offered, is the situation today and it will not be changed under
SB 205. On the day that the RCA considered SB 205, Commissioner
Jan Wilson put it simply, "I think it's time for the legislature
in our state to address these issues. So, I'm hesitant to take
a position that the bill not pass because it might be
interpreted that this commission, as a body, believes that the
statutes as they are today are (audio difficulties) and I just
don't think they are. I think changes need to be made in the
statutes to conform to the industry the way it is today, rather
than the industry as it was in the 1970s, 1980s, and that's it.
It is entirely completely different than it was in 1990." Ms.
O'Connor said, "We couldn't agree more."
3:26:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that several times within the
presentation Ms. O'Connor said, "Landline service will be
continued. Landline service will be continued," and she asked
how this will affect landline service.
MS. O'CONNOR answered that it will affect landline service in
freeing up resources for the companies to help with maintenance
and operation. In the grand scope of what is spent on networks
in Alaska, it is a small amount but it is still useful in
avoiding waste. She advised that there is nothing here that
allows a company to let their landline service stop, to let it
deteriorate, and should a company do so, the RCA has
demonstrated its ability to call that company in front of it,
demand an explanation, and enforce its rules.
3:27:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked that as far as Ms. O'Connor could
tell, whether this will affect rates on landlines.
MS. O'CONNOR answered "No," the biggest thing that could affect
rates is a loss of these supports, these universal service
supports. She said that in the event the AUSF was entirely
repealed, that could definitely cause rates to rise in some
areas. In the event of a disruption of the federal universal
service, which is not likely at this point because it was just
stabilized last year, those are the things that would drive
local rates higher, she explained.
3:27:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that he thought Ms. O'Connor had said that
with the de-regulation, local rates could go up to $14 a line
increase.
MS. O'CONNOR answered (audio difficulties), but a couple of
things are going on there, with landline rates there is
competition in 99 percent of the state from either another
landline provider or wireless, which is why "we are down" to
only 42 percent of landlines. People are simply abandoning
their landline service (audio difficulties) increases.
3:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Juneau, Anchorage, and
Fairbanks were basically subsidizing the smaller communities.
MS. O'CONNOR answered that it is a national sur charge. She
explained that there are two sur charges, as follows: the
federal sur charge (audio difficulties) so they pay and send
funds to support Alaska; and the state sur charge is not as much
(audio difficulties) every company in the state receives a
portion of it to support their operations.
3:29:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether it was similar to Power
Cost Equalization (PCE).
MS. O'CONNOR responded (audio difficulties) different as she
understands PCE is a fund, an endowment, and that goes to lower
electric rates which is a more direct manner of lowering rates.
Whereas, she explained, the AUS (indisc.) fund, the state fund,
is a fund to help build and operate networks and it is not as
direct of an offset, she explained that it is not really an
offset to the rates because it has an indirect effect.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that there is the regulatory cost
charge, which is completely separate, and it funds the RCA.
3:30:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to slide 14, and asked Ms.
O'Connor to put the consumer benefits into more specific terms
and how consumers will directly benefit.
MS. O'CONNOR offered that the best example is the Summit
Telephone Company where it is trying to basically retire
obsolete services and build a fiber network to deliver
broadband. The Summit Telephone Company had to give up on
retiring that obsolete service due to the cost of that filing of
the commission. In the event the Summit Telephone Company did
not have to wrestle with those filings, it could put the money
it is saving toward the new fiber network that it has been
mandated to build by the federal funding.
3:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD (audio difficulties) RCA is a massive
de-regulation bill which appears to be important. The fiscal
note read that the RCA will be a liaison with the FCC, it is a
significant de-regulation, but is still beneficial across
Alaska, she said. She related that she heard the Senate
presentation and she is contemplating offering the two
amendments Senator Bill Wielechowski offered on the floor of the
Senate. She said that, "If you have a docket that you've
already sent that says virtually the same thing to the RCA, ..."
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Reinbold's question
is whether Ms. O'Connor has a response to the two amendments
offered by Senator Wielechowski on the floor of the Senate. He
commented that he did not hear the two amendments, and asked Ms.
O'Connor to tell the committee what the two amendments entailed,
whether or not she supported the amendments, and why.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the committee could come back to the
questions if she was not ready to address these questions.
3:34:16 PM
MS. O'CONNOR said she was ready and addressed Amendment 1, and
referred to Sec. 2, [AS 42.05.141(e)(f), page 2, lines 1-4],
which read as follows:
(e) The commission may not designate a local
exchange carrier or an interexchange carrier as the
carrier of last resort.
(f) The commission may designate an eligible
telecommunications carrier consistent with 47 U.S.C.
214(e).
MS. O'CONNOR explained that Amendment 1 would have struck
subsections (e) and (f). Subsection (e) is actually the point
of the amendment where the bill read, "the commission may not
designate a COLR" and the objection was "You are getting COLR
funding, how can you not accept the designation of a COLR?" She
said that as she had previously explained, that COLR funding is
being completely revamped and "our proposal" reduces all funding
by 49 percent. Therefore, that is going away in one form or the
other and "we are very strongly advocating" that some funding
continue because it is important. The explicit COLR funding has
been (audio difficulties) and "we have proposed" that the
explicit COLR funding go away, so it made sense that the
designation would not continue.
3:35:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that Amendment 1 would actually maintain
the COLR designation.
MS. O'CONNOR agreed that Amendment 1 would maintain the COLR
designation and the ATA does not support that issue. She
explained that subsection (f) simply codifies something the RCA
already does, and the ATA did not consider it controversial and
she explained that this is the designation that the FCC (audio
difficulties) in order for universal service funding to come
into the state. It is important funding, it builds
infrastructure, it operates networks, and that is almost a
housekeeping item just to say that the RCA will continue the
funding, she said.
3:36:21 PM
MS. O'CONNOR referred to Amendment 2 (audio difficulties) the
designation was not there and the subsidy should not be there
either. In effect, she reiterated, that is probably where
"we're" headed with the RCA and the "R Docket." The Alaska
Telecommunications Association (ATA) stressed in hundreds of
pages of testimony to the RCA, the importance of (audio
difficulties) universal service fund. She comment that
explicitly designated COLR does not appear to be the future
path, but there must be some support coming from the Alaska
Universal Service Fund in order that there is not negative
impacts on landline service or all services in Alaska.
3:37:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the impetus [audio
difficulties continued to timestamp 3:37:55.]
MS. O'CONNOR (audio difficulties) several years and it has not
yet been accomplished.
3:38:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether that was something the
legislature could mandate.
MS. O'CONNOR answered that the RCA is a commission that reports
to the legislature.
3:38:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether anything in this legislation requires
legislative action, or is everything being requested something
that the RCA could perform entirely by regulation.
MS. O'CONNOR responded [audio difficulties continued to
timestamp 3:39:05].
3:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the statutes could be
changed in order to streamline the regulations without simply
exempting the carriers from the RCA jurisdiction, "which this
bill basically does."
MS. O'CONNOR replied that it exempts the remaining carriers that
are serving approximately 10 percent of Alaska's population that
are still under rate regulation. [Audio difficulties continued
to 3:40:00.] these service, and that has to be granted upon a
finding of the public interest. The Alaska Telecommunications
Association (ATA) considers that strong RCA jurisdiction.
3:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the fiscal note analysis [page
2, paragraph 2,] which read in part:
The RCA would still be required to certificate
wireline telecommunications carriers and adjudicate
the relinquishment or transfer of those certificates.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the RCA still has the
authority to prevent a carrier from "leaving someplace."
MS. O'CONNOR answered that Representative LeDoux was correct.
(Audio difficulties) sectional, that is one of the exact
sections, a separate section, that is solely regarding the
requirement to request permission before a carrier deceases
service. (Audio difficulties) as well as regulations tied to
"your very substantial universal service funding."
3:41:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether eliminating the carrier of
last resort impacts [audio difficulties continued to timestamp
3:41:58].
3:42:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the criteria for deceasing service.
MS. O'CONNOR answered [audio difficulties continued to timestamp
3:42:29] only has two people left, and ATA believes it is in the
public interest that it would stop [audio difficulties continued
to timestamp 3:42:47].
3:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that it is a high hurdle
currently, and asked whether it would still be a high hurdle
under this legislation.
MS. O'CONNOR responded (audio difficulties.)
3:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved that the committee decide that
hence forth it will let someone ask a question before "we decide
to cut them off."
CHAIR CLAMAN ruled that this committee is managed under the
rules of Mason's Manual and he will continue to follow Mason's
Manual. Chair Claman ruled Representative Eastman's motion out-
of-order.
3:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Senator Meyer's opening
presentation regarding all of the telecommunication companies in
support of CSSB 205, and asked why Verizon is not listed on
slide 2.
SENATOR MEYER responded that Verizon does not offer landline
services in Alaska.
3:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Senator Meyer had reached
out to any of the other communications companies that might want
to service Alaska, that are not currently in the state, to
obtain their comments as to whether this legislation will make
their decision to move into Alaska more or less likely.
SENATOR MEYER advised that he had not reached out, and currently
there are 15 companies in Alaska so it is a competitive field.
3:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Senator Meyer's perspective as to
whether this legislation would make it less likely that new
companies would form in the future to compete in this
competitive market. He opined that one of the reasons all of
the current providers are supportive is because the bill might
make it less likely that they would have increased competition.
SENATOR MEYER answered that he does not believe this bill would
prohibit new companies from coming into Alaska, and reiterated
that this bill pertains to landlines, and landlines have
decreased to approximately 40 percent in Alaskan homes.
3:47:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSSB 205. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony
on CSSB 205.
[SB 205 was held over.]
3:50:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT - RECESS
CHAIR CLAMAN recessed the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
a call of the chair, to resume at 6:15 p.m.
6:15:24 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 6:15 p.m. Representatives Claman,
Stutes, Reinbold, and Kopp were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Eastman arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 387-AG SCHEDULE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
6:15:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 387, "An Act relating to scheduled substances;
relating to the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee; and
authorizing the attorney general to schedule substances by
emergency regulation or repeal an emergency regulation that
scheduled a substance."
6:16:18 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to [CSHB 387, page 2, lines 4-11] Section
1, which read as follows:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that, if a person's criminal convictions
or charges outside the state are included in a
pretrial risk assessment conducted under AS 33.07, the
result of that assessment will control the release
decision and the section of this bill allowing a
defendant to be detained for 48 hours and directing
presumptive release on a person's own recognizance or
on an unsecured bond when the person has a criminal
conviction or charge outside the state will no longer
apply.
MS. KUBITZ advised that Sections 2-4 remain unchanged.
6:17:26 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 5, and advised that it contains a
technical change as to the 4/4/18 adopted Amendment 1 and has
been integrated into the bill to clarify that the attorney
general may schedule a substance by emergency regulation only if
the substance is currently listed on a federal controlled
substance schedule.
MS. KUBITZ advised that Sections 6-7 remain unchanged.
6:18:07 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 8, and advised that it allows (audio
difficulties) if the person has (audio difficulties) that the
release of this person will not reasonably ensure their
appearance in court or the safety of the community.
6:18:59 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 9, (audio difficulties).
6:19:27 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 10, conforming (audio difficulties).
6:19:52 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 11, (audio difficulties).
6:20:15 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 12, and advised that it makes
conforming and technical changes to the mandatory conditions of
release.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 13, and advised that it makes
conforming changes to clarify that the court shall consider out-
of-state convictions when determining the conditions of release.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 14, and advised that it changes the
law so that when a defendant who would otherwise be mandatorily
released on their own recognizance (OR) has an out-of-state
criminal conviction or charge that is a felony, a crime against
a person, or a sex crime, and has not been used in determining
the person's risk assessment under AS 33.07, the judicial
officer may require monetary bail upon finding on the record
that there is clear and convincing evidence the other conditions
are not sufficient to ensure public safety.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 15, (audio difficulties).
6:21:36 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 16, and advised that it makes
conforming changes to ensure pre-trial services officers comply
(audio difficulties) with the court (audio difficulties) with or
without a warrant and request (audio difficulties) violations of
conditions of release.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 17, [audio difficulties continue
throughout Sections 17-22].
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 23, and advised that it integrates
Amendment 2 [adopted on 4/4/18] clarifying that any (audio
difficulties).
6:22:32 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 24, and advised that it remains
unchanged.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 25, and advised that it is an indirect
court rule amendment stating that Sections 9-13, and AS
12.30.011(m) enacted by Section 14, have the effect of changing
Criminal Rule 41 by changing release conditions for defendants.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 26, and advised that it relates to
applicability.
6:23:05 PM
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 27, and advised that it is the
conditional effect.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 28, and advised that it relates to the
effective date.
MS. KUBITZ turned to Sec. 29, states that Sections 1, 8,15, 16,
and 25-27 of this Act take effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c).
6:23:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt CSHB 387, Version
30-LS1461\D as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
6:24:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Reinbold, Kopp, Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of
the adoption of CSHB 387, 30-LS1461\D as the working document.
Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 387,
Version D was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
6:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she reviewed CSHB 387,
Version D, and performed a comparison (audio difficulties) and
she found the following three valuable issues in this
legislation: prior to the attorney general adding an emergency
regulation, the substance must be on a federal schedule; (audio
difficulties) contention for two years and she is happy it is
addressed in this legislation; and out-of-state convictions can
be included, which is critical. In addition, she said, this
bill unshackles the state's judges by offering more judicial
discretion, and she will be a yes vote.
6:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commended Chair Claman for addressing the
following key pieces of public safety legislation in one bill:
the attorney general's authority to control dangerous substances
within the state's criminal law that are causing havoc on the
streets; this bill deals with the out-of-state criminal
offenses; it gives the prosecutors more time to make critical
detention decisions; it gives judges the discretion they have
been requesting; a defendant with a misdemeanor from an out-of-
state conviction is no longer excluded by the risk assessment
tool; and he truly appreciates the increase in authority for the
pretrial officers to make arrests and request warrants. He
described this legislation as a great piece of public safety
legislation and he, again, commended Chair Claman for moving the
bill.
6:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that this legislation is asking
the attorney general to take on a different type of
responsibility than was previously asked, and he opined that it
would be unexpected to find an attorney general who is already
in possession of (audio difficulties) that the legislature is
now expecting them to make decision. While the state has a
Controlled Substances Advisory Committee that can offer input,
there is nothing in the bill requiring that that input is
listened to, or read. Under this bill, he commented, the
attorney general can simply ignore that input and issue whatever
scheduling of a drug or other items it feels is appropriate in
its own discretion, which appears to be "an awful lot of
authority" to give to one person. He said that he is hopeful
that authority be well used, but he believes that experience has
shown that "that hope is not always borne out and that those --
that large of a grant of authority is likely to be abused at
some point so I am still holding reservations about that."
6:28:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Chair Claman would clarify the
concerns [of Representative Eastman] or whether the chair would
like Representative Kopp to clarify that the attorney general
has to use the controls of the Controlled Substances Advisory
Committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that as was discussed earlier in the
amendments, the whole purpose of the adopted two amendments was
to limit the drugs the attorney general can list to those that
have already been considered by the federal government.
Clearly, that significantly limits the attorney general's
authority. Also included is the three-year sunset clause
wherein if the legislature does not believe it is a good idea,
it can stop that authority at any point. In the event the
legislature has not acted within three years, then it lapses.
Therefore, in both of those instances, the committee is putting
significant restrictions on what actions can be taken by the
attorney general and, he added, Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth
joined the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee and would be
fully informed as to the controlled substances at issue.
6:30:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 387, Version
30-LS1461\D, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
6:30:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, LeDoux,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Reinbold, Kopp, and Claman voted in favor of the
passage of CSHB 387 out of committee. Representative Eastman
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 387(JUD) was reported out of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
HB 351-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
6:31:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
adjudication of minor delinquency and the deoxyribonucleic acid
identification registration system; relating to sexual assault
in the third degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth
degree; repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of
a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
6:31:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS0416\N.3,
Laffen, 4/10/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5, following "system;":
Insert "relating to jurisdiction for delinquency
proceedings;"
Page 1, line 8, following "drugs;":
Insert "amending Rules 2, 3, 8, 12, 14, 16, 21,
22, 23, and 25, Alaska Delinquency Rules;"
Page 9, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 47.12.020(b) is amended to read:
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
chapter, proceedings relating to a person who is 18
years of age or over are governed by this chapter if
the person is alleged to have committed a violation of
(1) the criminal law of the state or a
municipality of the state, the violation occurred when
the person was under 18 years of age, and the period
of limitation under AS 12.10 has not expired; or
(2) AS 11.56.760(a)(2) and was adjudicated
as a delinquent for the offense that required the DNA
testing under AS 44.41.035."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 41. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
INDIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. AS 47.12.020(b),
as amended by sec. 17 of this Act, has the effect of
amending the following Alaska Delinquency Rules by
providing that certain persons 18 years of age or
older are subject to adjudication as minors:
(1) Rule 2(n), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(2) Rule 3(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(3) Rule 3(c), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(4) Rule 8(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(5) Rule 8(c), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(6) Rule 12(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(7) Rule 12(c), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(8) Rule 12(d), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(9) Rule 14(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(10) Rule 16(a), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(11) Rule 16(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(12) Rule 21(g), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(13) Rule 22(c), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(14) Rule 23(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(15) Rule 25(b), Alaska Delinquency Rules;
(16) Rule 25(c)(4), Alaska Delinquency
Rules."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, line 22, following the first occurrence of
"Act":
Insert "AS 47.12.020(b), as amended by sec. 17 of
this Act,"
Page 19, line 22:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 19, line 23:
Delete "secs. 2 - 9 and 19"
Insert "secs. 2 - 9, 17, and 20"
Page 19, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 44. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Section 17 of this Act takes
effect only if sec. 41 of this Act receives the two-
thirds majority vote of each house required by art.
IV, sec. 15, Constitution of the State of Alaska."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 19, line 30:
Delete "Section 41"
Insert "Section 43"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.
6:32:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that he is moving Amendment 1 on behalf
of the bill sponsor.
6:32:39 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:32 p.m. to 6:33 p.m.
6:33:20 PM
[Discussion regarding the amendments.]
6:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ advised that Amendment 1 was
requested by Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender and he is
available by telephone.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Quinlan Steiner to explained Amendment 1.
6:34:20 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), advised that
as he reviewed CSHB 351, he noted that in creating a new crime
for failing to provide a DNA sample, there is the possibility
that it would result in an adult criminal conviction stemming
from an arrest and adjudication under the juvenile delinquency
rules. This, he explained, created a situation wherein the
legislature should consider the following two particular
problems: it would leave an adult record that was visible that
required a predicated conviction which would not be visible on
CourtView, and that would be an indication that someone had a
juvenile record. Thereby, openly undermining the juveniles'
attempts at rehabilitation. The inconsistency of having a
juvenile adjudication running at the same time as an adult
criminal offense, where this adult criminal offense could
ultimately override the primary concerns of rehabilitation in a
juvenile delinquency matter, and those two appear to be
inconsistent. Consequently, he said that he made the suggestion
to handle this entire matter, stemming from a juvenile
delinquency matter, under the juvenile delinquency rules, which
would be more consistent with the focus on rehabilitation.
6:36:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved Conceptual Amendment 1
Version 30-LS0416\N.4, to Amendment 1 Version 30-LS0416\N.3,
which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(1) Rule 2(k), Alaska Delinquency Rules;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(1) Rule 2(k), Alaska Delinquency Rules;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Steiner to explain Amendment N.4.
6:36:45 PM
MR. STEINER advised that he had not seen Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained how the above amendment read, and he
explained that it adds one more delinquency rule that was not in
Amendment 1.
MR. STEINER responded that those were discussions "we had," but
that is the definition of a juvenile. Therefore, he explained,
the committee would be making an indirect rule amendment to make
clear that the definition of juvenile in this limited
circumstance includes an individual who was 18 years of age at
the time this failure to provide DNA event occurred. Normally,
he further explained, someone who is 18 years of age, under the
juvenile delinquency rules, the conduct predates their 18th
birthday. He explained that the court can make this clear in
the rules that what was happening now needed to be governed by
the delinquency rules.
6:37:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was an objection to the
adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
6:37:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was an objection to the
adoption of Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
6:38:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Amendment 1, and commented that
it looks like a DNA swab based on a juvenile offense, and asked
whether this amendment changes what the law would be currently.
For example, if a 16-year-old committed an assault and was
required to submit to a DNA test, and for various reasons by the
time they were served with an order they were age 18 and they
refused to submit a DNA sample, "so now they have an adult
charge based on a two-year old juvenile charge." He asked
whether the law (audio difficulties).
MR. STEINER responded that under current statute, a juvenile is
required to provide a sample and that doesn't change, it simply
makes it a criminal offense. The concern comes in where
someone's conduct occurs just prior their 18th birthday, they
are arrested or adjudicated after their 18th birthday, and they
then choose to not provide a sample. In the prior law, that was
non-criminal and now it becomes criminal, it is simply that it
would be handled as a juvenile offense rather than an adult
offense, he offered.
6:39:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP (audio difficulties).
MR. STEINER answered that the bill actually changes the way the
law works because the bill itself makes it a criminal offense
where it was not a criminal offense. Amended Amendment 1 is
focused on making sure the underlying case continues to be
handled as a juvenile matter even though the refusal occurred
after an 18th birthday. He said that will put the two cases
together, essentially, and ensure that focus for that individual
remains on rehabilitation as is generally the case (audio
difficulties).
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Sec. 19 [AS 47.12.120(l)] page 12, 14-
25, and explained that it turns what was a non-criminal offense
into a criminal offense. Under current law, not giving a DNA
sample is not a criminal offense, and this bill will make it a
criminal offense.
6:41:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that if a person committed a
crime as a juvenile, and then after their 18th birthday they
commit the other crime of failing to submit a DNA sample, this
amendment would still make that subject to the juvenile rules.
She asked why the committee should do that because they were an
adult when they decided to not provide their DNA.
MR. STEINER answered that Representative LeDoux is correct as
long as the requirement that the person provide the DNA sample
stems from something that occurred as a juvenile. Under this
amendment, that adult conduct would be treated similarly as to
the case with the juvenile conduct. The reason being, he
explained, is two-fold: one is that you would have on CourtView
and in the public record, a record of a conviction for which a
predicate must exist. The predicate being a conviction or
adjudication for something that would lead to information
indicating that that person had a juvenile record. Thereby, he
pointed out, essentially opening up confidentiality and making
clear that there is a possible juvenile record there, it could
have been an out-of-state record but it could also be a juvenile
record. He pointed out that it would be counter to the goals of
rehabilitation and keeping confidentiality for juvenile so they
can move past whatever juvenile conduct took place. The other
reason being, he offered, is that this can happen relatively
quickly in that someone could be arrested just before their 18th
birthday, and then this event could occur right after their 18th
birthday, all based upon juvenile conduct. Again, he said, that
would sever the juvenile goals and now there are competing
interests in this adult case and that might overwhelm or
overrule the focus on juvenile rehabilitation and a chance to
move ahead.
6:44:00 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, explained that Amendment 1, as amended,
addresses an issue that Mr. Steiner identified to the division,
and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) does not
have a concern about the amendment. He explained that the
division collects DNA samples if the offense was a felony
against persons and occurred after their 16th birthday. He
remarked that the scenario of a juvenile refusing to submit
their DNA sample "doesn't really happen," so it is not a case
the division sees a lot of where the juveniles are an
adjudicated delinquent for a crime against a person and they
turn 18 years of age, and then they refuse to submit a DNA
sample, "that doesn't happen." In the event it did take place,
the division believes it is appropriate that they continue to
stay in the juvenile justice system. Juveniles who are
adjudicated close to their 18th birthday can stay in the
juvenile justice system up to age 20. Therefore, he explained,
they can commit a crime when they are almost 18 years of age and
continue to stay in the system up to age 20 with their own
agreement. He offered that the issues Mr. Steiner identified
are appropriate in that the conduct that would lead to this
criminal offense is related to a delinquency offense, and the
division is prepared to handle those cases in the same manner it
handles other delinquency offenses.
6:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that possibly the committee
should reconsider CourtView but she would not make a decision as
to whether or not something should be a criminal offense
depending upon whether it would be listed on CourtView.
6:46:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his impression that one of the
distinctions between dealing with this under the juvenile
section versus the adult section is due to the hope that by the
time someone becomes an adult they could have then been
rehabilitated and had the opportunity to learn from their
mistakes. He asked whether he had misinterpreted the testimony.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the delinquency statutes and the
purpose of the division is slightly different than the adult
correctional system, and one example is that juvenile records
are deemed confidential. Mr. Steiner identified this unusual
circumstance which could take place here, wherein juveniles have
been added to the crime of failure to submit a DNA sample, and
they are in the juvenile justice system proceeding through their
process and possibly in a treatment program, but they refuse to
submit a DNA sample. The juvenile would stay in the juvenile
justice system, therefore, this offense that occurred related to
their previous delinquency offense would be attached, of which
the division is not concerned.
6:47:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario of a juvenile who
commits a felony, they are in the system for that felony, and
now "we want to say that" just because they turned 18 does not
mean they should be treated as an adult and should be treated as
a juvenile. He asked, at what point does the division want to
"cut them loose," at what age if it is not age 18.
JUDY JESSEN, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that (audio difficulties).
6:49:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that Ms. Jessen did not
answer his question, and his question was directed to the
Division of Juvenile Justice.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that, after the age of 18 the new criminal
acts are referred to the adult criminal justice system. As this
act is related to a delinquent act and it is actually a
responsibility that the division is administering, the division
and the public defender believe it is appropriate to stay in the
juvenile justice system. He explained that it is similar to
conditions of conduct for release from custody, some of those
conditions become criminal acts because the person failed to
follow through on their appropriate probation conditions. Those
people stay in the juvenile justice system even though they
could be viewed as new criminal acts because they are under the
division's supervision. He reiterated that this is an unusual
circumstance, it is not something the division sees, and the
drafter identified that juveniles are required to submit DNA
samples and they had not been included in this criminal act
under Title 11. That issue, he explained, the drafters
identified as a bit of incongruity in the fact they were under
Title 44, they were required to submit DNA samples but they were
not subject to the penalties, the same requirements.
6:50:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the only circumstance under
which a DNA swab would be sought would be due to a felony
offense against a person.
MR. DAVIDSON responded, a minor over the age of 16 who commits a
felony against a person.
6:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to a less severe offense and
offered the scenario of a 17-year-old being arrested for a DUI,
"and then when they turn 18, by the time they are offered the
breath test because they were arrested at 11:00 p.m., they do a
breath test refusal." He commented that that is a separate
class A misdemeanor offense, or it could be felony depending
upon whether they had refused the test previously. He related
that that is only possible because they were arrested for a DUI,
and he asked whether that would be the same circumstance under
juvenile law because they do not serve three days in prison.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Representative Kopp identified an
offense that is outside of the juvenile justice system, it is a
driving offense and handled by the district court. He related
that he was not in a position to speak as to how a DUI fits into
the scenario.
6:52:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she believes in "catching
them early" and helping kids to change their ways and heart due
to a conviction. She related that it is fair to all Alaskans to
know whether a person committed a felony against a person and
that past behavior is often predicted future behavior. She
asked whether this legislation makes it softer or easier in any
manner, or is this a technical change with regard to people not
being able to see records or understand that a person had been a
danger in the past.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that he does not believe it does, the
offense being discussed is refusing to submit to a DNA test,
which is a mouth swab administered in the office. The
underlying offense would not be the offense that led them to the
DNA sample and it would not be available to the public, so that
change is not a concern.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 1,
as amended.
6:54:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Kreiss-
Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment
1, as amended. Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, Eastman, and
Reinbold voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended,
failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4.
6:54:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-
LS0416\N.1, Laffen, 4/6/18, which read as follows:
Page 18, line 20, through page 19, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 38. AS 47.17.020(a) is amended to read:
(a) The following persons who, in the
performance of their occupational duties or [,] their
appointed duties under (8) of this subsection, [OR
THEIR VOLUNTEER DUTIES UNDER (9) OF THIS SUBSECTION,]
have reasonable cause to suspect that a child has
suffered harm as a result of child abuse or neglect
shall immediately report the harm to the nearest
office of the department:
(1) practitioners of the healing arts;
(2) school teachers and school
administrative staff members, including athletic
coaches, of public and private schools;
(3) peace officers and officers of the
Department of Corrections;
(4) administrative officers of
institutions;
(5) child care providers;
(6) paid employees of domestic violence and
sexual assault programs, and crisis intervention and
prevention programs as defined in AS 18.66.990;
(7) paid employees of an organization that
provides counseling or treatment to individuals
seeking to control their use of drugs or alcohol;
(8) members of a child fatality review team
established under AS 12.65.015(e) or 12.65.120 or the
multidisciplinary child protection team created under
AS 47.14.300;
(9) juvenile probation officers, juvenile
probation office staff, and staff of juvenile
detention facilities and juvenile treatment
facilities, as those terms are defined in AS 47.12.990
[VOLUNTEERS WHO INTERACT WITH CHILDREN IN A PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR MORE THAN FOUR HOURS A WEEK].
* Sec. 39. AS 47.17.022(e) is amended to read:
(e) Each school district that provides training
under this section shall provide notice to public and
private schools located in the school district of the
availability of the training [AND INVITE VOLUNTEERS
WHO ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ABUSE OR NEGLECT OF
CHILDREN UNDER AS 47.17.020 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
TRAINING AT NO COST TO THE VOLUNTEER]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, line 14:
Delete "and 47.14.990(9)"
Insert ", 47.14.990(9); and AS 47.17.020(j)"
Page 19, line 30:
Delete "Section 41"
Insert "Section 42"
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that the legislature made a
mistake in adopting a recent statute "and in that statute you
can find the change listed on page 2 of the amendment, at the
first line." The legislature put into statute, and basically
incorporating for the first time that volunteers under the
category of mandatory reporting, makes them criminally liable if
they fail to report. He said, even as few as four hours a week
which could be a high school football game within which they
volunteer. In the event the committee permits this to continue
in statute, before the change was made, and now, and in the
future, there is nothing that prohibits or makes it hard for
volunteers to report issues of which they are concerned, or
observe. The criminal liability is (audio difficulties) if
dealing with a volunteer, he opined, that is raising the bar to
such an extent that volunteers no longer volunteer. He added
that since there is nothing that will make it difficult for them
to report or be involved in identifying abuse of any sort, he
opined that it needs to be made clear that volunteers should be
volunteering and this criminal liability should not be added.
6:56:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ stated that she does not support
Amendment 2, it introduces a concept into the bill which is not
part of the original bill updating the Division of Juvenile
Justice definitions in statute. This amendment would
essentially eliminate the mandatory reporting requirement passed
in 2015, specifically requiring that volunteers working with
children become mandatory reporters. She advised that this is
part of the Alaska Safe Children's Act which was an important
piece of legislation designed to actually increase safety for
children and make clear to the community that it is essential
that harm and child abuse is reported.
6:57:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection primarily
due to the scope of the bill. He said he was sympathetic to the
notion of being skeptical about putting volunteers in schools
for as little as four hours a week in a position of criminal
liability.
6:58:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that this issue was quite a
discussion in 2015, and it was a small meltdown for the
legislature. There was a lively discussion between former
Senator Lesil McGuire, former Senator Fred Dyson, and several
other senators about how to deal with the issue of regular
volunteers in the school versus those who are called to simply
step in for a volleyball practice, for example, and that some
volunteers have never had training in recognizing or reporting
abuse. This compromise came out of the Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee where language was included that "you are a
mandatory reporter if you interact with children in a school for
more than four hours a week." He completely philosophically
agrees that the legislature wants to minimize liability to
volunteers, and he suggested that that could be its own separate
bill.
7:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that CSHB 351 adds a ninth
category of people to the list of mandatory reporters. He
offered concern that this list is growing too long and as a new
category is being added, Amendment 2 would remove one category.
Professionals are added to the mandatory reporting category,
which is entirely appropriate, but volunteers are a different
matter, he said, and they should not be treated with that same
level of criminal liability.
7:00:52 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of the adoption of Amendment 2. Representatives Reinbold,
Kopp, Stutes, LeDoux, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-
6.
7:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that this legislation was the
source of lively discussion in the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee and while parts of the bill are
beneficial, he will be a no vote on passing CSHB 351 out of
committee.
7:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 351 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 351(HSS) moved out
of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 336-SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS
7:03:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act relating to supported decision-
making agreements to provide for decision- making assistance;
and amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that a companion senate bill already passed
the senate, and he asked Hans Rodvik, staff to Representative
Charisse Millett whether that bill is identical to HB 336.
7:04:05 PM
HANS RODVIK, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, answered [audio difficulties continued to
timestamp 7:04:20] carried by Senator Peter Micciche, and it was
one of the priorities of the Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education this year (GCDSE), but it was a different
bill.
7:04:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 336, labeled
30-LS1239\U, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 336(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
7:05:51 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.