02/06/2018 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB262 | |
| HB307 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 6, 2018
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Chris Tuck, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Dan Saddler
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to temporary courtesy licenses for certain
nonresident professionals; and relating to the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
"An Act requiring a person who commits certain offenses under
the code of military justice to register as a sex offender or
child kidnapper; relating to the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act; relating to contracts made by a member of the organized
militia; relating to nonjudicial punishment of members of the
organized militia; relating to offenses subject to court-martial
proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 262
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY SPOUSE COURTESY LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI
01/16/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) MLV, L&C
02/06/18 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 307
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY JUSTICE & MILITIA CIVIL RELIEF
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
01/24/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/18 (H) MLV, JUD
01/30/18 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/18 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/06/18 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, presented the
legislation as prime sponsor.
WILLIAM JODWALIS, Staff
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, testified and
answered questions.
FRED PARADY, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, testified and
answered questions.
ROBERT MR. DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, testified and
answered questions.
DALE VANDE HAY
Defense State Liaison Office
Military Community and Family Policy
Department of Defense
San Antonio, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, testified and
answered questions.
DAVID NEES
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, testified and
answered questions.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL CHRISTOPHER WEAVER
Office of the Adjutant General
Alaska National Guard
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 262, discussed
Amendment 1 and answered questions.
CAPTAIN BLAKE CIRCLE
Alaska National Guard
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 307, discussed
Amendment 1 and answered questions.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ROBERT DOEHL
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMLV)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 307, discussed
Amendment 1 and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:00 PM
CHAIR CHRIS TUCK called the House Special Committee on Military
and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
Representatives Tuck, Spohnholz, Rauscher, Reinbold, and Parish
were present at the call to order. Representative Saddler and
LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 262-MILITARY SPOUSE COURTESY LICENSE
1:04:09 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 262, "An Act relating to temporary courtesy
licenses for certain nonresident professionals; and relating to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development."
1:04:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that HB 262 is a culmination of many discussions that
took place over several years regarding expediting temporary
courtesy licenses. In 2011, House Bill 28, [passed in the
Twenty-Seventh Alaska State Legislature], allowed expedited
temporary courtesy licenses for spouses of Armed Services
members so they could practice their profession without
experiencing extensive wait-times for licensure approval.
Similar legislation has passed in other states; however, several
states, such as the States of Washington and Connecticut,
include a reporting mechanism to the legislature and Joint Armed
Services Committees wherein the state can track the progress of
the executive branches' implementation of those occupational
boards. He noted that House Bill 28 did not include a reporting
requirement when it was enacted. In the Fall of 2017,
legislators voiced concern that the full implementation of House
Bill 28 was not yet completed and that not all occupational
boards were aware of the seven-year-old statute. While
questions remain, HB 262 simply seeks to strengthen the ability
of those military spouses in obtaining occupational licenses in
an efficient and expedited manner as prescribed by law. This
legislation seeks to amend Title 8 to include the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) such that it
prepares an annual report of the courtesy licenses issued in the
previous fiscal year. He commented that this simple reporting
mechanism will help to facilitate communications between the
legislative branch, the executive branch, and the occupational
boards that oversee those licenses, he described. Thereby, he
said, this legislation will help facilitate those military
spouses in getting back into the workforce as quickly as
possible. The passage of HB 262 will improve communications
between those boards, the departments, and the legislature, and
it will improve the efficiency and awareness as to what
opportunities are available. He urged the support of this
corrective bill and described that it is in the best interest of
improving communications and accountability and helping those
military families transition into their new life in this state.
1:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to HB 262, Section 1, AS
08.01.063(f), page 2, lines 3-9, which read as follows:
(f) The department shall submit the report
prepared under (e) of this section to the Joint Armed
Services Committee on or before the first day of each
regular session of the legislature. In addition, the
department shall consolidate the two most recent
reports and submit a biennial report to the
legislature on or before the first day of the first
regular session of each legislature. The department
shall deliver a copy of the biennial report to the
senate secretary and the chief clerk of the house of
representatives and notify the legislature that the
report is available.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked why Representative Kawasaki
directed that the report go to the Joint Armed Services
Committee because if the report is also going to the senate
secretary and chief clerk, why does it need to go to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI responded that that is a technical
question for his staff member, William Jodwalis. He opined that
the purpose of the report going to the Joint Armed Services
Committee is because it will get to more legislators more
quickly. The report will also go to the senate secretary and
the chief clerk because "sometimes we do get those reports, and
other times we don't," he pointed out.
1:08:51 PM
WILLIAM JODWALIS, Staff, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska
State Legislature, responded to Representative Saddler's
previous question and advised that the report would be presented
to the Joint Armed Services Committee annually. He explained
that it would be two reports during the first year, and the
second year would be bi-annually presented to the legislature.
The idea of the report being presented to the Joint Armed
Services Committee is so that the information can get to the
military community more efficiently. The information would be
passed on to legislators who may have districts that would more
directly be affected with the content of that report. As
Representative Kawasaki advised, this legislation is modeled
after the States of Washington and Connecticut, he reiterated.
1:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the sponsor considered
drafting the legislation such that the one-year report would be
delivered to "everybody" one-year, and the two-year bi-annual
report would go "everybody" the second year, if the goal is to
provide the information to as many people as possible and in as
broad a reach as possible.
MR. JODWALIS answered that the sponsor would consider
Representative Saddler's suggestion.
1:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the name of the sponsor of the 2011
House Bill 28 courtesy license bill.
MR. JODWALIS replied that he could get that information to the
committee.
1:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the sponsor's statement that
this bill would increase communications between different boards
and commissions, and he asked how reporting to the legislature
would improve communications between boards and commissions.
MR. JODWALIS responded that the requirements of the report
direct that the department work with the boards in drafting the
report. He explained that the department would compile the
report after working with the various occupational boards,
determine what is being done, what better efforts could be taken
to fit the requirements of the report as outlined in the bill;
submit the report to the Joint Armed Services Committee; and to
the legislature bi-annually. The intent, he advised, is that it
would facilitate communications. He opined that the Department
of Defense suggested that those states experiencing difficulties
with the implementation of their military spouse occupational
licensure situation would review the examples of the States of
Washington and Connecticut.
1:12:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that rather than sending the
information solely to the boards authorized to issue a temporary
license, that the legislature might encourage "a little bit of
an initiative" by sending that notice to all of the boards with
the thought that they might decide to follow the same procedure.
He commented that he appreciates efforts to make the courtesy
license information more publicly available, and he noted that
he may come forward with an amendment to broaden the scope of
the distribution.
MR. JODWALIS thanked Representative Saddler for his suggestion.
CHAIR TUCK asked Representative Saddler to depict the boards and
commissions he would include in the potential amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that it is with regard to all
boards and commissions.
1:13:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the sponsor anticipates a
fiscal note.
MR. JODWALIS answered that the sponsor does not anticipate a
fiscal note.
1:14:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the sponsor's opening
statement that reporting would increase the activity of the
executive branch and asked whether that statement was under the
theory that if more people knew about it, they would take
advantage of this opportunity.
MR. JODWALIS replied that concerns were brought to the sponsor's
attention by the Department of Defense through the updated
preliminary funding of the Eielson Air Force Base Regional
Growth Plan. He noted that a focus group among military
families had taken place in order to determine the potential
challenges in moving to Eielson Air Force Base in light of the
arrival of the F-35s. He advised that included within the bill
packet is a comment regarding the challenges for anyone with a
license from a different state who is required to obtain a new
license or certification in Alaska. The point of House Bill 28
was to reduce the sort of challenges faced in 2011, and he
opined that the sponsor identified some of the issues.
Facilitating the department further and "getting their fingers
in those regulations and checking with their boards, that will
hopefully get us where we want to go," he offered.
1:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to HB 262, Section 1, AS
08.01.063(g), page 2, lines 13-16, which read as follows:
(g) ... The department shall encourage the boards
to designate a single employee to serve as the point
of contact for public information and inquiries
related to temporary courtesy licenses for military
spouses.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER advised that he previously worked on the
Alaska Boards and Commissions and each board does have such a
person, and he suggested that it might be helpful to make
certain they know the name of the contact person, and that the
person knows it is part of their duties.
1:16:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that everything in this legislation
is a good idea but commented that it is sad the bill regarding
temporary licenses was passed in 2011, and the legislature had
to pass another bill to make certain the boards and commissions
actually understood "what we've done." It appears that
something slipped through the cracks of the executive branch
during a couple of administrations, and she asked whether the
administration should be advising its boards and commissions as
to what is available.
MR. JODWALIS commented that the sponsor asked himself those same
questions and opined that it was a matter of letting the
foundation settle a bit in order to see the cracks, and that
some of the cracks were not anticipated. For instance, a
licensed acupuncturist from another state would investigate
Alaska "acupuncturist license" on the internet, and the
expedited military spouse licensing information is listed off to
the side under "military licensing." Due to the spouse not
being military personnel, they may not think that the link off
to the side directly applies. Although, he pointed out, it is
necessary that the spouse follow that link in order to obtain
the additional paperwork and receive that expedited licensure
privilege. He offered that the report will reveal the cracks
and hopefully after everyone has reviewed the report, they will
be fixed.
1:19:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that sometimes entities and
departments prepare reports on different issues and those
reports are not necessarily perused to the greatest extent
possible. She suggested that a concerted effort might be made
to work with the administration to try to determine how to
redesign a website, if that is the problem.
1:20:23 PM
CHAIR TUCK advised that the 2011 House Bill 28 was co-sponsored
by Representatives Bill Thomas, Bob Herron, and Eric Feige, all
of which are no longer serving in office.
1:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to the previous testimony of
Sarah Chambers, Deputy Director, Workforce Investment Board, who
shared that 13,396 applications were submitted for certification
or licensure last year, of which approximately 70 were veterans
or military spouse-related. This, she offered, may be the case
of the "needle and the hay-stack" wherein a light could be shown
on the needle through HB 262, in order to elevate the issue and
keep it on everyone's mind. She added that when there are over
13,000 applications, there could be the natural propensity to
lean toward volume processing and less toward the exceptions.
This discussion, she pointed out, is about unique exceptions in
which to make note, and she commended the sponsor for bringing
the bill forward.
1:22:30 PM
FRED PARADY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), advised that he was
available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that quite a few of these boards
and commissions from which people would like to obtain courtesy
licenses would be under the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED).
MR. PARADY offered to first provide a background, and explained
that the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing handles roughly 225,000 renewals for licenses or new
licenses each year, roughly 1/3 corporations, 1/3 businesses,
and 1/3 professional. Within the professional licensing
category, it has 43 professions that the legislature saw fit to
regulate, and 21 of those professions have boards.
1:23:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that House Bill 28 and the
presentation of HB 262 sheds some light on the fact that
military spouses are experiencing difficulties obtaining the
courtesy licenses enacted into law in 2011. She asked whether
Mr. Parady had suggestions to remedy the situation.
MR. PARADY advised that the department was certainly responsive
to 2011 House Bill 28, it has the department's attention, and
the department shares the eagerness to serve our military
personnel. After the enactment of House Bill 28, three best
practices were established by the Department of Defense, each of
which the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development has enacted. He offered those best practice as
follows: licensure by endorsement or credentials; if the
credentials approximate the department's requirements; the
application then moves to temporary licensure for 360 days while
the person puts together the necessary paperwork; and those
military applications are expedited. He commented that the
department does have its focus on that "needle in the haystack"
and that it serves its residents. He directed the committee to
the department's webpage and acknowledged that "military
licensure" is a sidebar on its quick links because the
department puts everything that is "in common across those 43
professions in one link," and he would look to see whether that
could be [more user friendly]. That link "takes you to this
page, and it takes you to a one-page form that clarifies your
military status." Regardless of whether the person fills out
that form, during the time the department's examiners review an
application and observe anything military on the application,
the application goes to the top of the list. He noted that
relative to the Eielson Regional Growth Plan, there is a "Tiger
Team" that meets in Fairbanks regarding the upcoming growth with
the stationing of the F-35s. He advised that he was on the
telephone when the Eielson Regional Growth Plan was presented,
noted this potential problem, and spoke to the fact that the
department is supportive to the needs of military spouses,
veterans, and members to licensure. The department is focused
on the project, the problem, and it is happy to do better, he
offered.
1:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this bill would help the
department do better and remain focused.
MR. PARADY advised that the department is neutral on HB 262, the
addition in statute of an annual reporting requirement is the
will of the legislature, communication is always a good thing,
and the department is a telephone call away and happy to report
to the legislature.
1:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Mr. Parady's statement that
there are 43 professions and 21 of those have boards, he asked
how many boards or commissions currently offer military courtesy
licenses.
MR. PARADY responded that according to the data in front of him,
the list depicts 11 boards that do not offer military courtesy
licenses and typically that is because they either do not have
an exam requirement or they are unique licenses for Alaska. For
example, registered or assisted guide outfitters who must
demonstrate knowledge of Alaska's game law; game transporter who
has a reporting requirement in the transportation of big game;
marine pilots who step on board and take command of large ships
that might be traveling into a harbor unfamiliar to that
captain, or through the Wrangell Narrows, and so forth. The
boards that do not offer military courtesy licenses are limited
to specific reasons.
1:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered a scenario of a military spouse
availing themselves to one of these professional licenses, and
asked whether they pay a fee, and if so, is it credited to their
eventual permanent professional license.
MR. PARADY related that he would have to confirm his answer, and
he opined that they pay a fee just like any other applicant.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that there are individuals with
professional licenses who certainly support the military but are
concerned about being asked to support the professional license
of a possible competitor.
1:28:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the question of whether this
bill would help the department "accomplish better" and asked
whether the department can accomplish better without the bill.
MR. PARADY reiterated that the department is neutral as to the
bill and it certainly has its attention focused here. Frankly,
he stated, within the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development on the Commerce side, it is of keen
interest that the Fairbanks military expansion with the F-35s
growth plans come to fruition and bear fruit for Alaskans. He
explained that what he is trying to say is that the department
is paying attention.
1:29:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested clarification that the Division
of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing currently
does need a single person to serve as the point of public
contact, or whether that is a position to be redirected.
MR. PARADY deferred to Sara Chambers, Deputy Division Director,
because she is the lead. He related that across the 21 boards
there are approximately 150 or so members, and they go through a
new board member orientation and board training, and those
materials include reference to military licensing and its
specific requirements. He pointed out that the department tries
to build it into the front loading of its new board members.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the committee would be able
to question Commissioner Robert Doehl or Sara Chambers.
CHAIR TUCK advised that Sara Chambers was not currently
available as she was testifying in other committees.
1:31:45 PM
ROBERT MR. DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), advised he was available to answer
questions.
1:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that when families arrive on base,
whether part of their orientation or procedure makes clear that
special courtesy licenses are available.
MR. DOEHL responded that there is not a mandatory briefing for
military spouses or children arriving on Alaskan bases as the
service members are required to attend briefings. Although, he
acknowledged that the service member may not advise their spouse
about the licenses but that is completely controlled by the
Department of Defense, and currently spouses are not briefed in
the United States locations.
1:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that there is not a mandatory
briefing or orientation for military spouses or children, and
she asked whether there is some sort of voluntary briefing for
those spouses who would like a briefing.
MR. DOEHL answered that they may, as an option, attend the end
briefing that their service member attends, but there is not a
briefing focused on the needs of the spouse in the new location.
1:33:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that without making it a federal
case, so to speak, could there be a spouse briefing.
MR. DOEHL replied that the briefings or orientations given to
service members and their families arriving on Alaska's military
bases are controlled by the federal government, and the federal
government has not yet given Alaska sovereignty over those
briefings. At this point, the department could reach out to
Citizens Action Group or other groups in which Representative
Saddler regularly participates with JBER and ask the base to
consider that option. However, he said, it would be a federal
military decision as to what it offers.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that there are an infinite
number of programs available that exchange information and
operate well that do not necessarily require a federal program.
1:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the department offers any
type of publications as to the benefits available to veterans in
Alaska and the resources available for military spouses, while
acknowledging that is not the department's primary
responsibility.
MR. DOEHL answered that at this time the department does not
have publications tailored to military spouses in Alaska.
1:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that this is an important
issue because the service member may receive a whole host of
information, but it is never distributed to the spouse. She
opined that there should be some sort of information
distribution system that offers awareness to the spouses because
there could be a communication gap.
MR. DOEHL responded that Major General Hummel can reach out to
the Alaska command (ALCOM) commander and the general officers in
the state to explore what mechanisms they may have available to
facilitate this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr. Doehl to get back to the
committee with that information.
MR. DOEHL advised that he would get back to the committee or
Major General Hummel will be in Juneau and can discuss the
issue.
1:36:59 PM
CHAIR TUCK opened public testimony on HB 262.
1:39:01 PM
DALE VANDE HAY, Defense State Liaison Office, Military Community
and Family Policy, Department of Defense, advised that this is
an issue the Department of Defense has been working on as one of
its ten key issues throughout the years. He acknowledged that
the issues were "birthed somewhat" during the 2011 timeframe and
advised that the Defense State Liaison Office tries to help
military members and their spouses who relocate, whether they
are service members getting out of the service that wish to
settle in Alaska or spouses who arrive with their military
member to an installation in Alaska. He commented that he was a
support group commander at Elmendorf Air Force Base in the late
1990s, and he does have a frame of reference on the challenges
of moving to Alaska. This effort is probably the number one
challenge, even today, for those military spouses joining their
spouse as they move around the country. He advised that he is
one of eight liaisons who cover the 50 states and he can attest
to the fact that this problem has not gone away. This issue is
back because the Department of Defense was still hearing that
this was a problem even though all states had passed laws to
work through the issues of licensure by endorsement, temporary
license, and expedited processes, but it did not appear to be
getting better. Therefore, the Department of Defense
commissioned the University of Minnesota to prepare a report
examining military spouse licensure and the results across the
board were that more efforts could be taken. Granted, he said,
in the hearing two days ago on the whole issue of occupational
licensure, there was a lot of discussion about the issue of
academic credentials, and what the boards are or are not doing,
and this legislation will reinforce the need to give further
attention to this continuing dilemma. He advised that the base
has a spouse employment manager who is typically at either the
Army Community Services Center or the Army Family Readiness
Site, and they do everything they can to help a spouse access
their new location. Typically, when a person is a professional
spouse with a certification or a license, they know that their
license is controlled by the board in that state, and the person
would go to the board to have their license renewed or certified
in some manner. The onus is on the spouse to contact the board,
and he related that it is reassuring to hear that the boards are
doing everything they can to improve that process.
1:44:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that his general experience is that
top vocations for military spouses tend to be teachers, real
estate agents, healthcare professionals, and businesses, and he
asked Mr. Vande Hay to relay the most likely vocations for
temporary licenses.
MR. VANDE HAY responded that the professions include the
professions Representative Saddler mentioned, and teachers and
nurses are in that category. There is an effort across the
country to advocate for interstate compacts which are currently
in the areas of physical therapy, emergency medical technicians,
nurses, and psychology professionals. The point being, he
offered, is that these interstate compacts, being populated in
all 50 states by those particular associations, are
opportunities for assistance for the military spouses. He added
that a University of Minnesota report zeroed in on particular
skills that are also needed and used by military spouses, such
as cosmetology, dental hygiene, massage therapy, mental health
counseling, occupational therapy, and real estate.
1:46:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Vande Hay to repeat the
occupations.
MR. VANDE HAY advised as follows: massage therapy, dental
hygiene, cosmetology, physical therapy, emergency medical
services, nurses, and psychologists.
1:47:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that in previous discussions the
question has been raised as to what is being done to accommodate
people with teaching credentials, which might not follow under
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
He asked what the legislature can do to facilitate a military
spouse's teaching credential and being able to teach in one of
Alaska's schools. He noted that Mr. Parady was shaking his head
no. Representative Parish then broadened his question to ask
what the other states are doing more effectively that Alaska
could model.
MR. VANDE HAY advised that this is another one of the Department
of Defense's issues because teachers do not fall under the
purview of these licensing compacts, and as to a temporary
certificate, the States of Indiana and Oregon provide a three-
year temporary certificate. He explained that when a teacher
arrives in one of those states, their initial qualifications are
required and sometimes they don't have all of the information,
such as state history. Those teachers are given a temporary
license for three years or eighteen months and then another
eighteen months, which is pretty much in the purview of House
Bill 28. Except, he noted, it does not cover teachers because
teachers are not under that bill. In the event the Department
of Education was rolled into this process and had that same
requirement, the person could be given the temporary
certificate, gather the paperwork or obtain the additional
credentials, and the license could be renewed after a certain
amount of time.
1:50:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the list he had offered
was a finite list or an example list.
MR. VANDE HAY answered that the list was an example of the most
used populations of professional military spouses, but there are
other occupations.
1:51:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered an example of being married to a
plumber, a general contractor, or a profession of that nature,
and "you are the person getting transferred to Alaska in the
military" and those are the types of licenses your spouse would
hold, "are those excluded also?"
MR. VANDE HAY asked whether the question is if plumbers and
contractors are excluded.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER advised that he was interested in
general contracting and all of those types of licenses and
commented that he imagined they are excluded.
MR. VANDE HAY advised that it all depends on whether they are
currently covered by the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development that handles most of those skills, but he
did not have a listing of those skills. In the event the desire
is to have those particular skills covered, then those
professional boards could be included in this process.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Chair Tuck if there was a way "we
can get on a list from wherever it is supposed to come from?"
CHAIR TUCK opined that it would come from the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development. He advised that
House Bill 28 is in front of him which is basically about
licenses, and he was unsure how far it went into professional
licenses. In the event someone had a contractor's license, he
said, he was unsure it would be easily transferred as it mostly
refers to professional licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said, dental hygienist.
CHAIR TUCK pointed out that that is a professional license. He
said he would try to obtain a list from the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
1:53:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to female service members
married to a general contractor who is following them around the
country and asked whether there are a rising number of female
service members.
CHAIR TUCK reminded the committee that it is currently under
public testimony and all questions should be directed to the
testifier and not to other witnesses.
1:54:49 PM
DAVID NEES, Alaska Policy Forum, offered appreciation for HB 262
because it offers the public a chance to review how the system
is currently working, and it appears that there are major issues
to consider. The Alaska Policy Forum noticed that a number of
military spouses with teaching credentials are working at the
private schools because "it requires too much money out of their
pocket" to train to become Alaska certified. He said, "We" do
have a temporary system for teachers, but it is only good for
one year and he suggested allowing, for example, one year with
one year out and then another one year out. In the event a
spouse arrives from overseas, there may have been a gap in their
teaching service because they were unable to teach in the local
schools overseas, but they still hold a professional license in
teaching. He reminded the committee that there is a shortage of
teachers in Alaska so anything "you can do to include that into
this process" would be helpful. The concentration of getting
the information out regarding professional licenses should not
be solely focused on the base; information should be given to
parents when they register their children at the local schools,
he suggested. He asked the committee to consider whether to
include teaching in one of the temporary licensures in order to
work in the State of Alaska. Currently, he said, most military
spouses with a degree in education are not working in the public
school system and are working in private school systems simply
because there are too many hurdles to jump when they know full
well that at some point, they will return home. This
legislation looks at whether the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development is the best place to get
information about licensure out to the military.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether a three-year temporary
license for those in the teaching profession would substantively
respond to the needs he had pointed out.
MR. NEES answered that it would, or to simply have a one-year
license.
1:59:23 PM
CHAIR TUCK, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 262.
[HB 262 was held over.]
HB 307-MILITARY JUSTICE & MILITIA CIVIL RELIEF
2:00:05 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 307, "An Act requiring a person who commits
certain offenses under the code of military justice to register
as a sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; relating to contracts made by a
member of the organized militia; relating to nonjudicial
punishment of members of the organized militia; relating to
offenses subject to court-martial proceedings; and providing for
an effective date."
2:00:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.
2:02:03 PM
CHAIR TUCK listed the witnesses available for questions. He
advised that two amendments were before the committee. One was
related to discussion that took place during the last meeting,
regarding the idea of including all service members, whether or
not they are a member of the organized militia, so that the
standard is the same for all military personnel. The second
amendment follows the alcohol and drug policies throughout Title
26 statutes.
2:03:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS1099\A.1, Glover, 2/5/18, which read as follows:
Page 10, line 15, following "prisoner":
Insert "or unlawfully uses a drug with a
prisoner"
Page 12, line 3, following "alcohol":
Insert "or a drug"
Page 12, line 9, following "drunk":
Insert "or under the influence of a controlled
substance"
Page 12, line 9, following "direct.":
Insert "In this subsection, "controlled
substance" has the meaning given in AS 26.05.870."
Page 12, line 13, following "alcohol":
Insert "or a drug"
2:03:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:03 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.
2:05:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected to the adoption of Amendment 1
for purposes of discussion, and for a friendly amendment.
2:05:25 PM
CHAIR TUCK explained that Amendment 1 attempts to keep the
language consistent with the language "we had earlier" that was
pointed out on HB 307 because some areas dealt with drugs and
other areas dealt with alcohol.
2:05:53 PM
LIEUTENANT COLONEL CHRISTOPHER WEAVER, Office of the Adjutant
General, Alaska National Guard, advised that he was driving, and
asked that Chair Tuck explain Amendment 1.
CHAIR TUCK advised that during the last hearing, the discussion
began at Sec. 16, [AS 26.05.785(b), page 10, lines 14-15], which
read as follows:
(b) A member of the militia who unlawfully drinks
an alcoholic beverage with a prisoner may be punished
by up to one year of confinement ...
CHAIR TUCK explained that the committee wanted the language to
refer not to simply drinking but "unlawfully uses a drug with a
prisoner."
2:07:04 PM
CHAIR TUCK referred to [Sec. 21. AS 26.05.860, page 12, line 3],
and advised that the amendment brings in the drug component to
all alcohol references.
CHAIR TUCK referred to [Sec. 21. AS 26.05.860, page 12, lines 1-
7], which read as follows:
Drunkennes and other incapacitating offenses
[DRUNK ON DUTY]. A member of the militia, other than
a sentinel or lookout, who (1) is found under the
influence of alcohol while on duty, or (2) as a result
of indulgence in any alcoholic beverage or drug, is
unable to properly perform the member's duty may be
punished up to one year of confinement ...
CHAIR TUCK explained that the amendment takes page 12, line 3
and adds the word "drug," thereby the language would read as
follows:
... who (1) is found under the influence of alcohol or
a drug while on duty, or (2).
2:08:02 PM
CHAIR TUCK referred to [Sec. 22, AS 26.05.865(b)], page 12,
lines 9-10, and explained that the language would read as
follows:
(b) A member of the militia who, while a
prisoner, is drunk or under the influence of a
controlled substance shall be punished as a court-
martial may direct.
CHAIR TUCK again referred to [Sec. 22, AS 26.05.865(b)], page
12, lines 9-10, and explained that the language would read as
follows:
(b) A member of the militia who, while a
prisoner, is drunk or under the influence of a
controlled substance shall be punished as a court-
martial may direct. In this subsection, "controlled
substance" has the meaning given in AS 26.05.870.
2:08:29 PM
CHAIR TUCK referred to [Sec. 23. AS 26.05.865] page 12, lines
12-13, and explained that the language would read as follows:
A sentinel or lookout who is found under the
influence of alcohol or a drug or sleeping on the
sentinel's or lookout's post ...
CHAIR TUCK offered that intent of Amendment 1 is to list alcohol
and any illegal drugs as well.
2:08:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to [Sec. 22, AS 26.05.865(b)],
page 12, line 10, and the addition of the following language
[after the word "direct."] In this subsection, "controlled
substance" has the meaning given in AS 26.05.870. He offered
concern where the amendment adds in "illegally uses drugs" and
"drugs," and requested clarity as to whether these terms are
according to state or federal law, whether there is a definition
for a drug, whether a drug necessarily is an illegal drug, and
so forth.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL CHRISTOPHER WEAVER responded that in the
performance of a service member's duties, it does not matter
whether the drug is legal or illegal. He offered that in other
portions of the Alaska Code of Military Justice (ACMJ), it is
illegal just as a matter of being in the military, so it would
have to be an illegal drug.
2:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked that he repeat his answer and asked
whether it is necessary to define drugs as legal, illegal, or a
controlled substance, and whether there is one way to list this
consistently throughout the bill or whether it is necessary to
have the distinct verbiage in each individual case.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that he would feel more
comfortable if he saw consistent nomenclature for every
reference to alcohol, drug, legal, illegal, and controlled
substance because different words may have different technical
definitions.
2:11:46 PM
CAPTAIN BLAKE CIRCLE, Alaska National Guard, explained that "on
a number of these," the reason it does not matter whether the
language is "legal drug" or "illegal drug," is because the issue
is the resulting incapacitation. For example, Nyquil or some
other drug can cause incapacitation to where the service member
could not perform their duties. He said that is the problem
some of these sections address, and the reason some of the
language is "drug" and not "illegal drug," is because the goal
is to address instances where a soldier may take what is
determined a legal drug, but it causes incapacitation such that
they could not perform their duties, he reiterated.
2:12:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that that information answered
his question, except the underlying question still remains. He
asked whether language could be used consistently throughout the
bill, for example, "a drug or an illegal drug such that it
results in incapacitation."
CAPTAIN CIRCLE apologized that Amendment 1 was not in front of
him.
2:13:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that she had those same concerns
and had "quite an in-depth conversation with Leg Legal." She
suggested a friendly conceptual amendment wherein on lines 2, 5,
15, delete the words "a drug" and insert "an illicit substance
or a controlled substance."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ commented that that changes the
meaning.
2:14:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that she was looking at Amendment 1
and HB 307 as written, and on page 12, line 3-4, the language
read as follows:
or (2) as a result of indulgence in any alcoholic
beverage or drug, ...
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether that would include a service
member who had taken a prescription drug or a non-prescription
drug with no criminal intent. She stressed that, if someone
falls asleep on duty that is one thing, but if they had simply
taken Sudafed or something similar, and were aware they could
fall asleep, but they were not asleep, she does not want to see
someone prosecuted for taking cold medication unless they were
"over-taking it or something" just for fun. Her concern, she
expressed, is how that reads in the statute as "we now have it,
even before the amendment."
CHAIR TUCK asked Deputy Commissioner Robert Doehl to explain why
"drug" is written in this provision, and whether it includes all
drugs, legal and illegal, prescribed and non-prescribed drugs.
2:16:24 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ROBERT DOEHL, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), answered that the concern from the
department is regarding any substance that renders an individual
unable to safety operate an aircraft or machine gun or other
lethal instrumentality. In the case of drugs such as Sudafed,
he noted that a warning is placed on the box, and even for an
over-the-counter drug, it may render a person incapacitated.
There are avenues within the military for the service member to
advise that they are sick and are taking a medication that
instructs a person not to operate heavy machinery, he offered.
In the event a service member is not fit for duty, the solution
is not to ignore the warnings on the label, it is to report to
their supervisor that they are medically unable to perform their
duties at that time. He advised that it is called, "duties not
involving flight" (DNIF) for pilots. Virtually anyone in the
military who is required medication for a medical purpose can
report to their supervisor that they are unable to perform their
duty due to a medication and it is not actionable.
2:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX argued that this [legislation] does not
solely cover pilots and people using other heavy equipment. For
example, this would mean that if someone took a Sudafed and was
feeling a little sleepy, they could be prosecuted for a crime.
She stated that that is not necessarily where "we or you" may
want to go.
MR. DOEHL answered that if he drives when he is drowsy, and a
warning label advised that "this may make you drowsy," he should
be prosecuted in that case. As to the equipment they use in the
operating parameters, there is a heightened standard of
responsibility, which is why they are given that "free out" if
they medically are unable to perform a duty, they report it, and
"they don't have to."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented, "If a person is driving, but if
the person was simply attending a committee meeting ..."
2:19:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ interjected and referred Representative
LeDoux to page 12, lines 3-4, which read as follows:
or (2) as a result of indulgence in any alcoholic
beverage or drug, is unable to properly perform the
member's duty ...
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that the service member would
not be prosecuted for taking Sudafed and being a little drowsy,
the person would be prosecuted for taking an inappropriate level
of Sudafed thereby rendering the person incapable of performing
their duties, and not taking advantage of the procedure of which
allows the person to not work.
MR. DOEHL responded that "in our case," properly perform the
duties would be the test, and whether an improper amount of
substance was taken. In the event he was unable to properly
testify at this committee hearing because he was asleep in the
corner of the room and he was in the military, he would be
improperly performing his duties. At that point, he explained,
his actions would be actionable because the government had
trusted him with the responsibility and he was derelict in his
duties.
2:20:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that during her tenure with the
legislature, she has seen numbers of people nod off during a
committee meeting and while it is not a great idea to nod off in
a committee meeting, on the floor, or in caucus, she is not sure
that should rise to the level of being put in jail.
CHAIR TUCK interjected that the original language in AS
26.05.860, is just "drunk on duty." Amendment 1 adds any other
type of incapacitating offenses, and the military is held to a
higher standard when it comes to the safety, security, and
protection required of the military members to protect our
nation.
2:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to HB 307, [Sec. 21. AS
26.05.860], page 12, line 3-4, which read as follows:
or (2) as a result of indulgence in any alcoholic
beverage or drug, is unable to properly perform the
member's duty ...
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the word "indulgence" and
asked how to interpret that word in this context.
MR. DOEHL deferred to Webster's Dictionary for defining
indulgence and offered his belief that a person voluntarily
partakes of a substance as an option to make them feel better.
2:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH then referred to [HB 307, Sec. 21. AS
26.05.860, page 12, lines 1-7], and he paraphrased and commented
as follows:
A member of the militia, other than a sentinel or
lookout, who (1) is found under the influence of
alcohol. And then the amendment adds language "or a
drug" while on duty, or. And then it refers to the
condition of being unable to adequately perform one's
duty.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH commented that under a strict reading of
the above, the committee should be wary that were a person to
take a Tylenol and people were aware the person had taken a
Tylenol while on duty, he would be under its influence even if
it did not result in any loss of capacity on the person's part.
In order to get at the spirit of this legislation, it may be
more useful to say, "under the influence of alcohol or a
controlled substance." He advised that the language regarding
indulgence in any alcoholic beverage or drug and the person
being unable to perform their duty is the correct language
because in the event someone takes "a whole bunch" of Nyquil,
they may be unable to properly perform their duty.
2:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered appreciation for Representative
Parish's comment regarding [HB 307, Sec. 21. AS 26.05.860, page
12, line 3] where the phrase "or a drug" is being inserted, and
to instead insert "a controlled substance" is an interesting
possibility. She then referred to a possible drafting error
located on Amendment 1, page 1, line 10, which read: "Page 12,
line 9" and suggested it should read "line 10," and it should
possibly be considered a friendly amendment.
2:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER commented that if a person were to take
a drug because they have a cold and they wanted to be able to
better perform their duties, Webster's Dictionary defines
"indulgence" as satisfaction, gratification, and fulfillment.
In the event a person takes the drug to actually fulfill his/her
duty and "not for those reasons, say you get hit by a car while
you are on this sentinel duty, and you didn't do anything
wrong," but the person will go to the hospital for a blood test
which will reveal "you have this in your system." A case could
be made that the person "did not jump out of the way, or
whatever, it really wasn't hampering you doing your duty unless
they really wanted to push that." He offered that the
suggestion from Representative Parish would be a better
clarification, although a person could partake of too much
Sudafed and be impaired.
2:28:58 PM
MR. DOEHL advised that the department's position remains "any
substance that ... or mind-altering substance is troublesome for
the duties service members are doing or may be called upon to
do." The illicit or controlled language is of some concern to
the extent that synthetic drugs are coming out faster than they
can be regulated with the same deleterious effects and
impairment. There is a voluntary decision of indulgence,
wherein an individual decides to take the drug, it wasn't
slipped into their drink, and they made the decision that even
though drugs were in their system, they still attempted to
perform their military duties. For the person crossing the
street and was not jaywalking, they would still be performing
their duties and it would not be actionable under this section.
However, if they stumbled out into the street it would be a
different scenario. He said the department supports the
amendment and believes the emphasis should be on the mind-
altering or "just a substance there with -- as proposed in the
amendment." The department recognizes there may be some
consistency issues in the amendment to work through, and it
believes that "illicit" is an issue and also "even a lawfully
prescribed drug, if an individual is impaired by it and there
are warnings they could be impaired by it, they should not be
doing those duties." The committee discussed Sudafed, but if he
was prescribed Vicodin and was trying to perform "something"
with all of the warning on that drug, it would be a very
different scenario.
CHAIR TUCK added that if something were to happen where a
soldier was unable to properly perform their duty as a result of
"taking these things," is what this is all about. It is not
about whether they took the drug, but rather that an accident
happened as a result of them ingesting the substance.
2:31:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1 on page 1, line 10, to delete "9" after the word
line, and insert "10." There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:32:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1, that any reference to "consumption of drugs or
indulgence in drugs" to substitute language along the lines of
"or as a result of consumption of any substance, a member is
unable to properly perform the member's duty."
CHAIR TUCK objected. He pointed out that the reason "drug" was
included in some of these situations is that the department does
not want the person to be under any influence, no matter if they
were able to perform their duties, or not perform their duties.
He said that he does not want to make it that every time there
is a drug reference, the committee is conditionalizing the
reference. He commented that the committee needs to take these
one by one because there is a reason there is one form of
language versus the other form of language.
CHAIR TUCK referred to Sec. 16, [AS 26.05.785(b), page 10, lines
14-15], which read as follows:
(b) A member of the militia who unlawfully drinks
an alcoholic beverage with a prisoner may be punished
by up to one year of confinement ...
CHAIR TUCK explained that Amendment 1 would add "or unlawfully
uses a drug with a prisoner" after the words "alcoholic
beverage." He commented that the use of drug is specific, it is
unlawfully, but there may be conditions where a service member
can lawfully "use it."
2:35:54 PM
CAPTAIN CIRCLE responded that adding "or unlawfully uses a drug
with a prisoner" is correct as there may be instances where a
member of the militia may be able to lawfully use a drug in that
situation. He explained that qualifier would address those
instances.
CHAIR TUCK asked whether the committee had problems or
suggestions for lines 1-2 of Amendment 1.
2:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the language that a service
member can be punished for up to one year for the unlawful use
of a drug with a prisoner, and he asked whether that is in
addition to other penalties which may be prescribed by law.
MR. DOEHL answered that due to double jeopardy issues, this
would be either a criminal prosecution militarily or in civilian
court, it is not that one or the other would prosecute in that
case. This particular language arises here because when a
prisoner is in a custodial relationship, all drugs they are
taking must be approved through a certain medical process, not
simply illicit drugs.
2:38:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked at which entity's discretion it
would be prosecuted: under a court martial or in civilian
court.
MR. DOEHL noted that Representative LeDoux is the author of the
original House Bill 126, Code of Military Justice Appeals
[passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature]. He
advised that civilian courts have the first right of refusal.
2:38:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she has a problem with
the word "drug" as it too broad and she has a problem with
"prisoner," and asked, "can't this be individually as well, or
does it have to be with the prisoner?" She said, "I did do a
friendly conceptual amendment on line 2, 5, and 15, to delete 'a
drug' and put in an 'illicit or controlled substance' like 20
minutes ago." She said she is convinced her friendly amendments
are important, because "'a drug' is too broad."
CHAIR TUCK advised Representative Reinbold said that he heard
her bring up a suggestion, but he did not hear a formal
movement.
MR. DOEHL advised Representative Reinbold that the department
thanks her for drawing attention to this important issue a week
ago in order to have this dialogue. In terms of the discussion
of "uses with a prisoner," he explained that that is a separate
type of offense rather than performing a duty impaired. This is
with regard to any unlawful use of a drug with a prisoner
regardless of whether a service member is impaired. At that
point, it is actionable on its face because it is undermining
good order and discipline. That sort of relationship between a
prisoner and the person in charge of keeping the prisoner a
prisoner is unacceptable, which is why it is a separate
provision than those in terms of the duty issues. He related
that he understands the concern about how to define drug or
define the illicit or controlled substance, and the concern of
the department is that there are substances that can be used for
mild-altering purposes that may not be on a schedule as a banned
or controlled substance.
[The motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 was
treated as withdrawn.]
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that to her an illicit drug is
an illicit drug and possibly the committee needs a technical
definition, it is a mind-altering substance.
2:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 1, and referred to Amendment 1, lines 2, 5, 15, "in
the very left column," to delete the phrase "a drug" and insert
"with an illicit or controlled substance."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ objected.
CHAIR TUCK restated Representative Reinbold's Conceptual
Amendment 3 to Amendment 1, and advised that on Amendment 1,
page 1, lines 2, 5, 15, any reference to the word "drug" is
replaced with the phrase "illicit substance or controlled
substance."
2:42:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ requested the specific legal definition
of the term "illicit," and asked whether the committee could
simply use the dictionary or ask Legislative Legal and Research
Services.
MR. DOEHL responded that he googled the term "illicit" and noted
that it means, "forbidden by law, rules, or regulation," and he
related that he does not have the Alaska Statues in front of him
to determine whether "illicit" is more specifically defined.
CHAIR TUCK surmised that within Conceptual Amendment 3, there is
"illicit substance or controlled substance" that pretty much
covers all drugs.
MR. DOEHL responded that "controlled" would be those drugs that
are controlled, such as the scheduled narcotics; and "illicit"
is forbidden by law, rules, or regulation. Sudafed is not
forbidden by law, rules, or regulation on its face, but use of
it in "a duty-impairing way" would be.
CHAIR TUCK asked Representative Reinbold whether her intention
is to exclude drugs such as Sudafed.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that her intention is to not
make it so broad that it includes everything, and she needs to
see the definition.
2:44:42 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:44 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.
2:47:42 PM
CHAIR TUCK advised that before the committee is Conceptual
Amendment 3 to Amendment 1, and there may be other issues to
fix.
2:47:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 1.
2:48:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew her motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 to address the concerns of the
committee.
CHAIR TUCK announced his intent that the committee members
review Amendment 1 [as amended], in order to speak to all of the
problems they perceive, and any other additional language in
going through Amendment 1 that may be in the original bill, with
the intent to properly draft Amendment 1.
2:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 21. AS 26.05.860, page
12, lines 1-7], which read as follows:
Drunkennes and other incapacitating offenses
[DRUNK ON DUTY]. A member of the militia, other than
a sentinel or lookout, who (1) is found under the
influence of alcohol while on duty, or (2) as a result
of indulgence in any alcoholic beverage or drug, is
unable to properly perform the member's duty may be
punished up to one year of confinement ...
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that the whole problem is that
under (1), it is kind of strict liability as to whether a person
is under the influence of something; whereas, under (2) the
person must be impaired. She said that she agrees with the
department that if someone is impaired, even if it is Sudafed,
they should not be on duty. Except, she pointed out, if it is
strict liability, it makes sense to say, "alcohol, or probably
not illicit, but I mean something that gets the idea that its an
illegal substance that you want strict liability for if you are
on duty." She added that another glitch to throw into this
discussion is how the committee prefers to deal with marijuana,
which is illegal under federal law and legal under state law and
this is something the committee does need to consider.
MR. DOEHL referred to HB 307, page 12, Sec. 26.05.860, and
pointed out that it connotates two different ways someone other
than a sentinel could be in violation. One is for influence of
alcohol, and he opined that a drug in that case would mirror the
illicit or controlled substance as Representative Reinbold
offered. For instance, if someone has a random urinalysis while
on duty, there is a list of those controlled substances that are
not allowed. The department's intent for the random urinalysis
example is that there is a defined list of substances they
cannot take, and that "or" is "or this other condition" which is
where whatever substance had been taken, impaired the person's
ability to perform their duties. Therefore, it would be apropos
in that case if the committee does not want to use "drug" to
perhaps use "mind-altering substance or impairing substance" or
something to that effect to capture something broader than
simply the controlled drugs.
2:51:38 PM
CHAIR TUCK referred Representative Reinbold to HB 307, page 12,
line 4, which read as follows:
... any alcoholic beverage or drug
CHAIR TUCK explained that that means "illegal or not," and asked
whether she agrees with leaving "drug" in that line, or would
she like to replace it with a different terminology.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD answered that her recommendation is
"illicit or controlled substance," because "drug" is broad and
that is her concern.
CHAIR TUCK explained that he was not referring to Amendment 1,
he was referring to page 12, line 4, of the bill. Amendment 1
was attempting to add "alcohol or drug" in line 3, and he opined
that it does need to be spelled out because the discussion is
not about illegal drugs, the discussion is about illicit or
controlled substances. He advised that Representative
Reinbold's Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 made sense
"right there." He clarified that when looking at line 4 whether
after "beverage or drug" would encompass those drugs that are
legally over the counter and can be taken but happens to impair
a person's ability to perform their duties. He asked whether
"that is good enough terminology to encompass all of that for
you."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that she has to put a bit more
thought into the question because that was part of her
amendment.
2:53:25 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked Representative Saddler the same question
because there were concerns about where "drug" was used in "some
of this stuff."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that the committee had not
begun the process of going down each paired line of Amendment 1
to determine whether the application of the operative words to
each individual circumstance is appropriate. He opined that the
committee had generally agreed to the first pair on lines 1-2,
and then the committee was subsumed by the proposal for an
omnibus amendment to change "drug". He commented that he does
not feel comfortable doing this until speaking with the
Legislative Legal and Research Services drafter, so he would
recuse himself from the discussion.
CHAIR TUCK clarified that this is not part of the amendment,
this is simply [page 12], line 4, "as we were looking at this,
and clarifying what we meant with line 3, adding 'drug' in there
but now, maybe changing that to 'illicit or controlled
substance.'"
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that if drug is conditioned by
"is unable to properly perform member's duty, you can call it
anything you want to if that is the test and that is the
standard." He said he would support "illicit" or "drug" because
either word conditioned by "is unable to properly perform the
member's duty" makes either acceptable.
CHAIR TUCK reiterated that it is the chair's wish for the
committee to set Amendment 1 [as amended] aside, and each member
will work on it to get it right, and currently the committee is
going through everything generally.
2:54:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH opined that the adjustments contemplated
on page 12, line 3-4, are sensible. Although, he commented, the
committee may want to look at page 12, lines 12-13, and he
paraphrased as follows: "A sentinel or lookout who is found
under the influence of alcohol or sleeping on the sentinel's or
lookout's post" in the same light as Sec. 26.05.860 [page 12,
lines 9-10] and capture the nuance of, "or a controlled
substance or other drug which would tend to impair them in the
performance of their duties." He suggested trying to tie
together the two critical clauses brought to the committee's
attention by Mr. Doehl, and pointed to the problem of people
using illicit substances and also those using perfect legal
substances which could tend to impair them in the performance of
their duties without the knowledge of their medical officer, he
said. Generally, he advised, a medical officer would give them
a "not fit for duty" chit and let them tend to their health.
Under extreme conditions, such as during a natural disaster, he
opined that the courts would tend to take that into account if
someone sprained an ankle and wanted to take an Advil and
continue working.
2:56:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that someone could have a
reaction to a drug that impaired their ability, and she was
unsure whether that was included in the legislation which is why
she is sensitive to the "illegal or illicit" part of this and
"drug" is too broad. She referred to "Sec. 26.05.870, Wrongful
use of possession," and said she was glad "that is down here
lower on line 12, which is important."
2:58:08 PM
CHAIR TUCK advised that Amendment 1, as amended, and HB 307
would be held over. [The committee treated Representative
Saddler's Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 as held over.]
2:58:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a section deals with
someone giving a prisoner drugs.
CHAIR TUCK answered that it would be the section the committee
previously discussed regarding someone guarding a prisoner ...
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER interrupted and said that giving a
prisoner drugs and not doing drugs with a prisoner is not
addressed here.
MR. DOEHL explained that "doing drugs with the prisoner" and
giving drugs to a prisoner is addressed in HB 307 in terms of
standing orders.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked why there is a need for this
paragraph if there is a paragraph covering a person while on
duty "a couple of paragraphs later." He reiterated his question
and asked why the need for this paragraph if a person cannot
give the drug to a prisoner in another section, and then the
earlier paragraph stating, "you can't do drugs while you are on
duty."
MR. DOEHL answered that the short answer is that it is a
different count of a higher count due to the negative effects on
good order and discipline.
CHAIR TUCK added that it is a higher violation under that
circumstance.
[HB 307 was held over.]
3:00:27 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 3:00 p.m.