03/10/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB233 | |
| HB264 | |
| HB250 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB285 | |
| HB228 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2020
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 233
"An Act relating to the display of documents on an electronic
device."
- MOVED HB 233 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act relating to proof of financial responsibility after
certain motor vehicle accidents."
- MOVED HB 264 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to voter preregistration for minors at least 16
years of age."
- MOVED HB 250 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
"An Act relating to living conditions for prisoners."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act relating to the Alaska Coordinate System of 2022."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 228
"An Act relating to notice provided to victims regarding
petitions for removal from a registry that is published on the
Internet; relating to the duration of the duty to register as a
sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to petitions for
removal from a registry that is published on the Internet;
relating to the definitions of 'tier I sex offense,' 'tier II
sex offense or child kidnapping,' and 'tier III sex offense or
child kidnapping'; amending the definition of 'sex offense';
relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals;
establishing Rule 35.3, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 233
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DISPLAY OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VANCE
02/05/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 264
SHORT TITLE: PROOF OF INSURANCE: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/21/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION AGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOPKINS
02/17/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/03/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/05/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 307
SHORT TITLE: EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/05/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/20 (H) STA, JUD
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 285
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 2022
SPONSOR(s): SHAW
02/24/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (H) STA, RES
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 228
SHORT TITLE: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY; NOTICE TO VICTIMS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/20 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/10/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REID HARRIS, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
264 on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tompkins, prime sponsor.
JUDY SMITH, Board Member
Kids Voting North Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
ALEX KOPLIN
Kenai Peninsula Votes
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
KENGO NAGAOKA, Youth Civic Engagement Coordinator
Alaska Center Education Fund
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
MAIDA BUCKLEY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
RACHEL HARTMAN
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 250.
REID HARRIS, Staff
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 307 on behalf of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of the bill and which
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins chairs.
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 307.
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
307.
JOSHUA WALTON, Staff
Representative Laddie Shaw
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 285 on behalf of
Representative Shaw, prime sponsor.
MARTY PARSONS, Director
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
285.
GWEN GERVELIS, Surveys Manager
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
285.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 228 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the sectional analysis for HB 228
on behalf of the House Rules Committee, sponsor, by request of
the governor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:02:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Representatives Shaw, Hopkins, Story, Thompson, Vance, and
Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
HB 233-ELECTRONIC DISPLAY OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
3:04:16 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 233, "An Act relating to the
display of documents on an electronic device."
3:04:32 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 233.
After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify,
he closed public testimony.
3:04:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, prime sponsor of HB 233, expressed her
desire to strengthen the statutes for people's privacy.
The committee took a brief ease.
3:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 233 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 233 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 264-PROOF OF INSURANCE: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS
3:05:59 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act relating to proof
of financial responsibility after certain motor vehicle
accidents."
3:06:26 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 264.
After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify,
he closed public testimony.
3:06:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins,
prime sponsor or HB 264, what prompted him to introduce the
proposed legislation.
3:07:04 PM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Thompson,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins, prime sponsor of HB 264, explained that the
requirement for a lifetime SR-22 insurance for an unsatisfied
judgement - that is, a failure to pay for damages after causing
injury, death, or property damage of over $501 [in a motor
vehicle accident] - even after the judgement has been staid or
satisfied, is an onerous requirement. Under the proposed
legislation, it would be necessary for the judgement to be staid
or satisfied; however, the SR-22 would only be required for
three years from the time the judgement was satisfied.
3:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 264 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 264 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 250-VOTER REGISTRATION AGE
3:08:59 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 250, "An Act relating to voter
preregistration for minors at least 16 years of age."
3:09:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 250.
3:09:46 PM
JUDY SMITH, Board Member, Kids Voting North Alaska, testified
that her board expressed that HB 250 would be very beneficial in
enlisting youth involvement in their own registration process -
more so than offered by the automatic system. The goal of her
organization is to interest young people in voting early in
their lives so that voting becomes part of the "family fabric."
The organization urges students to vote with their families,
thus, encouraging parents to vote. She expressed her belief
that passage of HB 250 would raise the percentage of voters
among young people and impact families as well.
3:11:02 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, Kenai Peninsula Votes, testified that his
organization is non-partisan and encourages people to vote. He
expressed his support for the proposed legislation to increase
voter turnout, to engage voters, and to highlight the importance
of voting. He maintained that it would increase engagement
among young people, as well as in high schools and in families.
He emphasized that increasing the percentage of voters is a non-
partisan issue and getting people out to vote is an ongoing
challenge.
3:13:40 PM
KENGO NAGAOKA, Youth Civic Engagement Coordinator, Alaska Center
Education Fund, testified that he became involved in local
issues at an early age. He works on voter engagement of young
people and creating opportunities for young people to get
involved in the political process. The work of his organization
is non-partisan. He maintained that HB 250 would expand voter
engagement opportunities into high school; most high schoolers
turn age 18 after graduation. High school offers an incredible
opportunity for teachers to be able to talk about voting with
their students. He mentioned a practice in other states to send
out voter registration forms with graduation diplomas. He said
that HB 250 would provide an entry point for the next generation
of Alaska leaders.
3:16:31 PM
MAIDA BUCKLEY, paraphrased from her written testimony, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony
regarding HB250.
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Ben Franklin's now famous words spoken at the
conclusion of the Constitution Convention in 1787
carry authenticity today. These words acknowledge the
fragile nature of representative democracy that is
dependent upon citizen participation. It is the
government's responsibility to protect and promote the
right to participate, whether it is by speech, by
petition, or by the vote. In this light, I support
HB250's providing a process of pre-registration for 16
year olds. By engaging young people in the election
process, HB250 strengthens our democratic republic.
Studies have shown that voter turnout is enhanced when
voter registration is streamlined.
HB 250 instills in our youth the importance of voting
to maintain democratic institutions and provides the
foundation for creating a robust electorate, both
principles guiding our founding fathers in their
efforts to provide a strong and lasting democracy.
MS. BUCKLEY added the following testimony:
... the government's responsibility to protect and
promote the right to participate in our system of
representative government. As a society, we believe
that every student learn and recite the words to both
the "Pledge of Allegiance" and "The Star-Spangled
Banner." Similarly, learning the voting process, how
to register, how to find polling places, let alone,
reading and marking ballots, provide students with
this tool. This bill fulfills the promise of
representative government that our founders presented
in the Declaration.
In conclusion, it seems unfathomable that women were
not allowed the right to vote a hundred years ago but
as we celebrate this hundredth anniversary, I'm
ironically reminded of [what] ... Antoinette
Blackwell, an early suffragette, said, "We fully
believed, so soon as we saw that woman's suffrage was
right, everyone would soon see the same thing, that in
a year or two, at farthest, it would be granted."
MS. BUCKLEY pointed out that it took over 70 years for suffrage
to be granted. She stated that since passage of the Nineteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, suffrage has been extended
to other groups, and other barriers to voting have been removed
through government actions. She maintained that HB 250
represents a continuation of that trend. She expressed the
value of Kids Voting in high school and civic engagement that
directly involves students in the process, not just in theory,
but in actual actions to ensure civic participation in the
democratic republic.
3:20:36 PM
RACHEL HARTMAN paraphrased from her written testimony, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
I am Rachel Hartman, an 18 year old senior at Matsu
Career and Technical High School in Wasilla. I support
this bill because I believe it will be an effective
first step in mobilizing my peers to become more
active in politics early on in their lives. When
people are actively going to school they tend to be
more engaged in how the government runs by way of
Civics and Government classes. In Alaska we even have
a student government conference called the Alaska
Association of Student Governments abbreviated to AASG
where around 300 students from all over Alaska come
together twice a year to hear resolutions and decide
whether we support them as a whole. In the past AASG
has passed resolutions that support the lowering of
the voting age to 16 under specific circumstances such
as in 2018 it was only for municipal elections. Though
this bill only establishes preregistration, it
reflects the demands that Alaska's students have
expressed so frequently. Young people want to get out
there and do their civic duty and registration is a
good place for them to start. Often people graduate at
17 and are not registered before they had [sic] off to
college and are in a transitionary period, in that
time many forget to register and vote as they turn 18
and are eligible for the first time in their lives. I
believe this bill will help young people be ready to
vote when they are available to perform their civic
duty.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony.
3:22:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that the state has actively put
in place a mechanism for automatic registration of Alaskans when
applying for their PFDs. She maintained that the issue of
people "falling through the cracks" has already been addressed,
and pre-registration for 18-year-olds already exists. She said
that she asked a 16-year-old what his/her peers thought about
the topic; the response was that registering to vote at 16 and
not being allowed to vote is a major letdown.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE maintained that she likes the educational
element of the proposed legislation; however, HB 250 does not
include any educational mechanism that the teachers don't
already have. She expressed her understanding that the intent
of HB 250 is to encourage engagement through activity in the
process. She acknowledged that more needs to be done to make
young people - and all Alaskans - aware of the process. She
stated that her overall objection is due to the FN, which is a
challenge at this time
3:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY emphasized the importance of an educated
public and encouraging young people to vote. She mentioned that
she has witnessed the interest and engagement of students in
local issues and elections - both in student government classes
and at home. She expressed her belief that HB 250 would serve
Alaskans well in the future by encouraging more people to be
active in elections. She lamented the small turnout in
elections and the fact that few voters are making decisions
affecting municipalities and choosing their representatives.
3:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 250 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 250 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 307-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
3:27:54 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 307, "An Act relating to living
conditions for prisoners."
3:28:16 PM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read:
HB 307 bill amends AS 33.30.015(a) relating to living
conditions for prisoners by removing the restriction
prohibiting a prisoner from possessing a computer in
the prisoner's cell, and expanding the approved
purposes for which a prisoner may use a computer to
include facilitation of rehabilitation and
reintegration, access to legal reference materials,
visitation, or as part of a reentry plan.
3:29:12 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections (DOC), relayed that the department supports HB 307 -
the use of computers by inmates for reentry and rehabilitative
purposes. She pointed out the zero-fiscal note (FN) and stated
that under HB 307, the prohibition on inmate access to computers
would be lifted; once the restriction was lifted, the department
would consider the technologies and opportunities that exist.
3:30:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about department oversight regarding
the inmate use of computers.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that oversight would be addressed in the
next phase. She said that the phase of lifting the restrictions
would be first; examining the policies for oversight and
determining the details of implementation would be in a second
phase.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered that "reintegration into society"
is vague. She maintained that the general public would support
efforts to assist inmates with education and reintegration; and
she acknowledged the importance of accessing services. She
stated, however, that the phrase "reintegration into society" is
too vague; the parameters of what an inmate may access is not
well defined; and an inmate could legally demand access to
social media and video games.
MS. WINKELMAN responded that to date, the focus has been on
General Education Development (GED) testing, [access to]
Medicaid [a government health care insurance program], and "for
the system to be able to create some sort of efficiency for
other departments." She stated that she acknowledged the
concerns and would welcome an amendment.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that although the language is
permissive, in no way would an inmate have the legal right to
demand access to video games.
MS. WINKELMAN concurred, and reiterated that the department has
not had discussions on policies to address the concerns brought
forward by Representative Vance.
3:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that school districts have
information technology (IT) security measures; they dictate the
sites that may or may not be accessed; the schools can monitor
what students are accessing. She offered that DOC IT could also
provide that security.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked whether DOC would provide the
computers for computer access.
MS. WINKELMAN answered no.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his understanding that
currently there is electronic device access by inmates and asked
what devices they access and who provides the devices.
MS. WINKELMAN replied that currently in facility education
departments with computers, the computers are older and without
internet access. In certain institutions, an inmate can
purchase a video game machine; however, any of the computers
provided to the inmates are "locked down" in the education
department and overseen by correctional officers (COs) or
education coordinators.
3:36:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for a clear statement of the goal for
lifting the prohibition and exactly what opportunities exist for
reintegration into society under HB 307.
3:37:26 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Corrections (DOC), answered that the department considered
knowledge and awareness of the use of technology as one of the
aspects facilitating successful reintegration; once inmates are
released, they would have a familiarity with filling out an
online application for employment or health benefits.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized that the intent of the
proposed legislation is clear philosophically and as such, has
the support of the committee; however, more specificity is
needed on implementation mechanically and programmatically.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the use of computers for
reentry would occur within the education department, or whether
there are other areas in the prison where that would occur.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that often the education department area
is where reentry courses are held; however, many times
volunteers from community and the reentry coalitions and the
field and institutional probation officers (POs) work with
inmates to prepare them for release. Not just the education
coordinators or teachers in the facility help with the reentry
program.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 307 would be held over.
HB 285-ALASKA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 2022
3:40:30 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 285, "An Act relating to the
Alaska Coordinate System of 2022."
3:40:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW introduced HB 285, as prime sponsor, by
saying that HB 285 would revise the Alaska Statute chapter
38.20, known as the Alaska Coordinate System.
3:41:01 PM
JOSHUA WALTON, Staff, Representative Laddie Shaw, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from his written talking points, which
read:
• Thank you Mister Co-Chair, and thank you for the
opportunity to present House Bill 285 to the
committee.
• House Bill 285 revises Alaska Statute chapter 38.20,
known as the Alaska Coordinate System, to reflect
changes in the federal datum used as a base for the
coordinate system and to allow for future updates.
• The updated 2022 datum and Alaska Coordinate System
will greatly improve accuracy, eliminate known issues,
and provide Alaskans an easy system to share
positioning data and access to the National Spatial
Reference System.
• So what is a geodetic datum?
o A geodetic datum is a tool used to define the
shape and size of the earth, as well as the
reference point for the various coordinate
systems used in mapping the earth.
o Datums are used in geodesy (the study of the
Earth's shape), navigation, and surveying by
cartographers and satellite navigation systems to
translate positions indicated on maps (paper or
digital) to their real position on Earth.
o Each starts with an ellipsoid (stretched sphere),
and then defines latitude, longitude and altitude
coordinates.
o One or more locations on the Earth's surface are
chosen as anchor "base-points".
• The Earth, of course, is not a perfect ellipsoid. It
has hills, mountains, canyons, valleys, and the like.
• Previous datums have not always been able to be [sic]
capture these deviations accurately and consistently.
o For example the most recent datum incorporated in
statute the North American Datum of 1983,
adopted into statute as the Alaska Coordinate
System of 1983 provides horizontal positions in
latitude and longitude, but not elevation or
altitude positions.
• Fortunately, the forthcoming National Geodetic Survey
datum represents a significant improvement in this
regard.
• It relies completely on reference stations that
continuously receive GPS information.
• For elevation, it combines the previous ellipsoid
height estimations with geoid estimations which are
based in variations in the Earth's gravity.
• We have a short video going over this which may make
things a bit more clear.
3:43:47 PM
[A 4-minute, 40-second video from the National Geodetic Survey
(NGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
entitled "What's Next for Geodetic Datums?" was shown, and can
be found through the internet link:
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/corbin/class_description/NGS_
Datums_video_2c/
3:47:57 PM
MR. WALTON continued with his presentation, which read:
• To sum up, this new datum will allow for much more
precise and standardized positioning, which will be of
enormous value for purposes of accurate navigation and
surveying.
• By incorporating this forthcoming datum into our
statutes, House Bill 285 helps ensure that the State
of Alaska is prepared to make full use of the latest
and greatest technical standards available.
• Once this new datum is adopted, the National Geodetic
Survey will no longer support the old systems. Alaska
will not be able to take advantage of improvements in
geodetic positioning, in particular the new gravity-
based elevation which will dramatically improve the
ability to measure elevations in Alaska.
• Forty-eight states have adopted state plane coordinate
systems in their statutes; all will need to be
updated.
• House Bill 285 does that for Alaska.
• Scientists, surveyors, design professionals, GIS
specialists, and the geospatial community will all
benefit from an improved coordinate system that
minimizes linear distortions and is designed to
include population centers and resource development.
• Even though the change is over a year away, the time
to prepare is now. While tools will be available to
facilitate the transformation of specific position
information, it can take years to change products
services or databases. Passage of HB 285 is critical
to Alaska maintaining accuracy to survey and mapping
in the near future.
• I should note if I haven't made it painfully obvious
already that this is not a particular area of
expertise for me.
• Fortunately, I don't have to go it alone today; on the
line we have some folks from the Department of Natural
Resources who are far more [knowledgeable] than I am,
specifically:
o Gwen Gervelis - Chief Surveyor, State Geodetic
Coordinator
o Kris Hess Deputy Director, Mining, Land and
Water
• With that, I'm happy to go through the brief sectional
analysis, if that's the will of the committee.
• That's all I have. Thank you for the opportunity to
present this legislation, and I remain available for
questions.
3:51:01 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why such specificity regarding
geodetic datums is written into law.
3:51:41 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Division of Mining Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), expressed that he did not
know why, but his guess is that working with a single datum
offers consistency among all the different surveying platforms
and ensures information is consistent throughout the various
types of survey and scientific operations.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW added that spatial perspective is important
relative to establishing the geodesic survey, which, in turn, is
important for hiking. He said that if a person is hiking 1,000
vertical feet, he/she would want to be sure the measurement is
exact.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the likelihood that the
coordinate system would change in a decade or two based on
improved technology, and the state would again change its
statute.
MR. PARSONS replied that changes in the coordinate system are
out of the state's control; the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and NOAA NGS control the coordinate system; the last correction
was in 1983 and before that in 1927. He maintained that once
the datums are put in place, they are there for a significant
period.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW added that since 1983, so much has changed
due to advanced technology and satellite-based systems; it is
hard to imagine improvements happening very soon.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the change in statute would
affect activity in DNR and other systems.
MR. WALTON responded that it would enable DNR and all state
agencies that do surveying to operate with a much more precise
positioning system. Locations can be identified more clearly
and with more accuracy and less dispute over boundary lines.
MR. PARSONS explained that it is important to keep in mind that
as people increase their ability to locate themselves precisely
on the face of the earth and do so quickly, it significantly
cuts down time and expense in the surveying process, not only
for surveyors but for lay people. He added that it enables the
state to better monitor the movement of dams and other
structures due to tectonics.
3:57:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether Alaska has enough reference
stations to produce satisfactory results in remote areas of
state.
MR. PARSONS answered that with the updated Alaska Coordinate
System, the state would have enough Continuously Operating
Reference Stations (CORS) allowing Alaska to do real-time
differential adjustment. Under the current system, Alaska would
need a significant number of additional stations.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how the current system differs from
the system proposed under HB 285 in terms of having enough
stations.
MR. PARSONS explained that the new system would work with the
number of stations Alaska has; under the current system, Alaska
would need to increase the number of CORS to perform real-time
adjustment.
3:59:51 PM
GWEN GERVELIS, Surveys Manager, Division of Mining Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), relayed that the
current CORS in the state are adequate for accessing the
National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) under the [2022] datum
and coordinate system update which is proposed under HB 285; the
CORS were used to measure the state for the system.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to testimony that 48 states have
made these changes and expressed her understanding that Alaska
is "behind the curve" in adopting the new coordinates. She
mentioned the zero-fiscal note (FN). She asked how many other
changes would be needed in response to changing the geographical
coordinate system and the length of time to make the change.
MR. WALTON responded that there are 48 states, including Alaska,
that have adopted the State Plane Coordinate System (SOCS) in
statute. Any state with those statutes, would need to update
them ahead of the 2022 datum coming online, because the NGS will
support the new specifications and stop supporting the old ones.
He opined that there is a zero FN because the coordinate system
is created and provided by the federal government; therefore,
the state would only need the statutory change to allow it to
use the new standard, but would not need additional equipment.
MR. PARSONS concurred with Mr. Walton's explanation and added
that the coordinate change represents a mathematical conversion.
If Alaska does not update its coordinate system to the 2022
references, it would have to do the conversions itself, which
introduces error. Updating to the new system would eliminate
the error, allow Alaska to take the readings directly from the
equipment, and put the readings directly into the different
surveying and scientific programs that use the information.
4:04:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether surveyors and private
surveying companies would need to purchase additional equipment
or programs to utilize the data.
MS. GERVELIS answered, "No, they will not." She added that the
current Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment that
they use will access the [updated] system; NOAA NGS will create
software to make the transition smooth.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that HB 285 would be held
over.
4:05:54 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 228-SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY; NOTICE TO VICTIMS
[Contains discussion of HB 49.]
4:06:17 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 228, "An Act relating to notice
provided to victims regarding petitions for removal from a
registry that is published on the Internet; relating to the
duration of the duty to register as a sex offender or child
kidnapper; relating to petitions for removal from a registry
that is published on the Internet; relating to the definitions
of 'tier I sex offense,' 'tier II sex offense or child
kidnapping,' and 'tier III sex offense or child kidnapping';
amending the definition of 'sex offense'; relating to the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; establishing Rule 35.3,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
4:07:34 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor, relayed that HB
228 is in response to the Alaska Supreme Court decision of June
2019, Doe v. Department of Public Safety. It held that
offenders on the sex offender registry must be afforded the
opportunity to be removed from the registry, if they can
demonstrate that they no longer pose a danger to the public.
The decision was based on the Alaska State Constitution's "Right
of Privacy" provision [Article I, Section 22], and stated that
the state's sex offender registry, without affording an offender
the opportunity to be removed, is unconstitutional. The
decision discussed an offender on the registry being denied
housing, employment, and living in a certain community.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that HB 228 would provide the legislature
with an opportunity to provide guidance to practitioners and the
courts about the burden of proof that an offender must produce
to establish that he/she is no longer a danger - "beyond a
reasonable doubt," "clear and convincing evidence," or "probable
cause." He posed the following questions: What sort of prior
convictions or other factors might influence the decision about
whether an individual is dangerous? How long must an offender
be on the registry before he/she is able to apply to be removed
from the registry? If an offender is denied, can he/she reapply
to be removed? If so, how frequently and what sort of factors
would determine whether the offender could reapply?"
MR. SKIDMORE stated that there are two components to the
registry: the law enforcement registry, which is used for law
enforcement purposes, and the information posted online for the
public to view. Under current law, a smaller subset of the
information provided to law enforcement is posted online. All
the concepts that the Alaska Supreme Court found that violate
the Alaska State Constitution are based on the public registry.
Another very significant question is, "When an individual has
the opportunity to be removed from the registry, is that simply
an opportunity to not have their information published to the
public, or does that mean that they never have to provide any
information to law enforcement, once they've met that burden?"
He maintained that these are all questions that need to be
answered and are best answered by the legislature. He said that
HB 228 would afford the legislature the opportunity to discuss
these issues and provide guidance on policy.
MR. SKIDMORE noted that HB 228 would also bring Alaska's
registry into closer alignment with the federal government and
other states. He relayed that the proposed legislation
accomplishes this in two ways: First, it creates three tiers of
registry for evaluating different types of offenses instead of
two tiers of registry. Second, there is additional information
that Alaska does not currently require that would be helpful for
law enforcement. An example is international travel
information. When an individual from another country travels to
the U.S., the U.S. State Department asks the other country to
advise it if the individual has been convicted or held
responsible in that other country for a sex offense. The U.S.
government wants to monitor the sex offender who is coming to
the U.S. Likewise, other countries want that information on
U.S. citizens that travel. This information is valuable for law
enforcement but is never posted on a public registry.
4:14:01 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what would happen if the
legislature took no action.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that all the questions that he posed are
under litigation in the superior court. If the legislature does
not act, then the courts would have to continue to legislate
"from the bench" to answer the questions. He stated that if
decisions are made on a case by case basis, then each superior
court judge would make decisions independently on each case.
There is no controlling guidance from one superior court to
another. The only way judges would be bound and uniformity
brought to the process is if there was a conflict in the lower
courts and the case was heard by the court of appeals or the
Alaska Supreme Court. In that case, one of them would have to
legislate from the bench and provide guidance. He said that
another option would be for the Alaska Court System to adopt
rules to answer the questions - again resulting in the judicial
branch legislating and providing policy guidance instead of the
legislature. He added that if the legislature does not act,
there would be two outcomes: 1) increased litigation and
expense, and 2) a lack of guidance resulting in continued
confusion and cases handled in different manners. He added that
if the legislature were to decide that it doesn't agree with the
courts, it would have no ability to reverse the decisions.
4:17:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how a minor - in the case of a 14-
year-old sending a nude photograph through a [cell] phone -
would be treated under the tiered system and be removed from a
sex registry.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that in Alaska, minors are not required to
register for sex offenses; therefore, they would not be impacted
under HB 228 or current law.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the chart from DOL, entitled
"Sex Offender Registration" and included in the committee
packet, and asked how the benchmarks for the tiers were chosen:
registration with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for 10
years under Tier I, 15 years under Tier II, and Life under Tier
III; eligible for removal from the online registry at 5 years
under Tier I, 10 years under Tier II, and 15 years under Tier
III.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the tiers in the chart are those used
by the federal government and by most states in the country.
Alaska is following other states for a uniform approach
nationwide. The tier system and the time frames are in line
with what other states are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is data showing that a
sex offender or kidnapper is unlikely to reoffend after a
certain number of years to support the schedule in the chart.
MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that he is not aware of studies on
that issue. Most of the states in the country have statutory
provisions like what the Alaska Supreme Court is requiring the
legislature to enact - a way for individuals to be removed from
the registry if they can demonstrate that they no longer pose a
danger.
4:21:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Skidmore to elucidate on "Class A
Misdemeanor Sex Offense: Sexual Abuse of a Minor 4" under Tier
1.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that misdemeanor sex offences are the
least serious of the sex offenses. Sex offenses are
characterized by sexual penetration and sexual contact; and
misdemeanors relate to sexual contact, as defined under AS
11.41.427(a)(1)-(5), which read in part:
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual assault in
the fourth degree if
(1) while employed in a state correctional
facility or other placement designated by the
commissioner of corrections for the custody and care
of prisoners, the offender engages in sexual contact
with a person who the offender knows is committed to
the custody of the Department of Corrections to serve
a term of imprisonment or period of temporary
commitment;
(2) the offender engages in sexual contact with a
person 18 or 19 years of age who the offender knows is
committed to the custody of the Department of Health
and Social Services under AS 47.10 or AS 47.12 and the
offender is the legal guardian of the person;
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that the sexual contact cited involves
someone older and not sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the legal effects would be for
the state, if it chose to increase the time frames [for being on
the online registry] under the tiers.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that he does not know at what point the
court would conclude that the length of time someone is on the
registry is longer than what the court considers due process
required under the Alaska State Constitution. He offered that
the courts have indicated that someone needs to be afforded the
opportunity to be removed from the registry. The proposed
legislation would set a clear and convincing evidence burden of
proof to show that the person is not a danger; that is, looking
at subsequent convictions, other assessments, and whatever DOL
considers would give the greatest assurance that someone removed
from the registry would not be a danger. He added that under HB
228, the individual would only be removed from the public
registry but would still be required to report to law
enforcement.
4:25:38 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Committee,
sponsor, by request of the governor, paraphrased from the
sectional analysis for HB 228, which read:
Sections 1 and 2 require a victim to be notified
of the filing of a petition for removal from a
registry that is published on the Internet and of
their right to participate in the subsequent hearing.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 add to the list of
information that a sex offender or child kidnapper
must provide to the Department of Public Safety upon
registering to include such things as if they intend
to leave the state or intend to travel
internationally.
Section 6 of the bill creates a third tier of sex
offenders and child kidnappers. The tier will
determine the length of the registration period. Tier
I offenders will need to register for 10 years after
unconditional discharge, tier II offenders will need
to register for 15 years after unconditional
discharge, and tier III offenders will need to
register for life after unconditional discharge.
Section 7 of the bill clarifies that the period
of registration is tolled if the sex offender or child
kidnapper is not in compliance with the registration
requirements or is incarcerated. The period tolled
would be equal to the amount of time that the person
was out of compliance or was incarcerated.
4:28:33 PM
Section 8 outlines the criteria that must be
satisfied before a sex offender or child kidnapper may
be removed from an Internet registry. The sex offender
or child kidnapper must have
(1) successfully completed all treatment
programs ordered by the court or required by the
parole board;
(2) within the previous year, been assessed
as low-risk by a treatment provider approved by
the Department of Corrections under AS 44.28.020;
(3) since being convicted of the offense for
which the person is registering, has not been
convicted of an offense, attempt, solicitation,
or conspiracy to commit any of the following
offenses:
(i) a crime against a person under AS
11.41;
(ii) a violation by sex offender of
condition of probation under AS
11.56.759;
(iii) sending an explicit image of a
minor under AS 11.61.116;
(iv) cruelty to animals under AS
11.61.140;
(v) misconduct involving weapons under
AS 11.61.190 11.61.250;
(vi) a sex offense or child kidnapping
as defined in AS 12.63.100; or
(vii) a crime of domestic violence
under AS 18.66.990.
In addition, the person must not have been
convicted of failure to register as a sex offender or
child kidnapper for the previous 15 years for a tier
III offender, 10 years for a tier II offender, or five
years for a tier I offender. These time periods must
not include the period prior to unconditional
discharge.
4:30:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Section 8(a)(3), on page 9,
line 29 - page 10, line 11, of HB 228, and asked whether an
offender convicted of any of the crimes listed under
subparagraphs (A)-(G) would never be removed from the offender
registry.
MS. SCHROEDER answered, "That's correct. Those are disqualifying
offenses."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the standards were
consistent with the Alaska Supreme Court ruling.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that the supreme court was not very
prescriptive regarding the standards; DOL looked to other states
to develop a list that the department thought would work in
Alaska.
MS. SCHROEDER continued to paraphrase from the sectional
analysis, which read:
The court must find by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the registration and compliance
requirements outlined in statute have been satisfied;
(2) the sex offender or child kidnapper is unlikely to
commit another sex offense or child kidnapping; and
(3) continued registration on a registry that is
published on the Internet is not necessary for the
protection of the public. Even if the person's
information is removed from an Internet registry, the
person must still register with the Department of
Public Safety for law enforcement purposes.
This section also requires the Department of
Corrections to pay for the risk assessments required
under this section if the court determines that the
person petitioning for removal from a registry that is
published on the Internet is indigent.
Finally, this section makes clear that the court
must allow the victim of the offense which required
the sex offender or child kidnapper to register to
submit comments to the court about whether the person
should be removed from the registry that is published
on the Internet.
Section 9 of the bill makes sexual conduct with
animals a registerable sex offense.
Section 10 of the bill defines "registry that is
published on the Internet" and "tier I," "tier II,"
and "tier III" sex offenses.
Section 11 is a conforming change.
Section 12 of the bill allows the public defender
to represent an indigent person in their petition for
removal from an Internet registry.
Section 13 gives the Court of Appeals
jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding removal from an
Internet registry.
Section 14 requires the Department of Corrections
adopt standards for the administration of risk
assessments for sex offenders and child kidnappers.
Section 15 establishes a court rule which mirrors
the requirements in section 8 of the bill.
Section 16 amends the applicability of the
requirements for an out-of-state sex offender to
register in Alaska when that person is present in the
state (ch.4 FSSLA 2016 (HB 49)) to apply to offenses
committed before, on, or after July 9, 2019.
4:35:47 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the legislature did not make
the requirement [for an out-of-state sex offender to register in
Alaska] retroactive at the time HB 49 was passed.
Section 17 repeals AS 12.63.100(1), the
definition of aggravated sex offense under AS
11.41.100(a)(3) or similar law of another jurisdiction
since the bill moves from the aggravated sex offense
classification to the tier system established in
section 6.
Section 18 is the applicability section. Most of
the bill is retroactive and will apply to sex
offenders and child kidnappers who have already been
convicted and are on the registry.
Section 19 is the conditional effect section for
the court rule.
Section 20 establishes the effective date of the
bill as July 1, 2020.
4:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether sex offenders from out of
state, who must register in Alaska, would be subject to Alaska's
requirements for removal from the registry or those in the state
in which they were convicted.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that an individual from out of state would
be required to register for the same length of time that he/she
is required to register in the state of conviction. To afford
the person the opportunity to be removed from Alaska's registry,
DOL would need to determine the appropriate tier.
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins's
question, said that DOL wanted to keep the law as narrow as
possible in dealing with out-of-state sex offenders so that if
there was a legal challenge, it would be a "clean" legal
challenge. He explained that applying the law retroactively is
a different legal concept - one that DOL wanted to keep
separate. He added that the case that prompted introduction of
HB 228 had two components: One component was whether Alaska sex
offender registration may be imposed on sex offenders who have
moved to Alaska. At the time HB 49 was moving through the
legislature, there was litigation in the Alaska Supreme Court
addressing such issues. That portion of the opinion was decided
in Alaska's favor. The second component was that the court's
opinion led DOL to believe that applying the law retroactively
would be legal.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 228 would be held over.
4:39:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:39
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 233 Letter of Support 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support #2 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support #3 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 307 Sponsor Statement v. A 3.9.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/23/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 Sectional Analysis v. A 3.9.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 v. A 3.9.2020.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 307 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO-03-06-20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 285 Sponsor Statement ver A 3.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 Sectional ver A 3.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 ver A 3.10.20.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 285 Fiscal Note DNR-DMLW-3-6-20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 285 |
| HB 228 Transmittal Letter 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Sectional Analysis 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOA OPA 1.27.2020.PDF |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DMVA Offc Commissioner 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 v. A 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOA PDA 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DOC Health and Rehab 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note DPS Statewide Support 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 228 Fiscal Note Law Crim. Div. 1.27.2020.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 228 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support - Testimony 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |
| HB 233 Letter of Support - Testimony #2 3.9.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 233 |