02/10/2026 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB250 | |
| HB180 | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2026
3:17 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair
Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Ky Holland
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Steve St. Clair
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Ted Eischeid
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act establishing the crime of wearing a mask in public while
acting as a peace officer; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to the powers of the commissioner of
administration with respect to motor vehicles; relating to
electronic identification cards; relating to electronic driver's
licenses and permits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to flexible time credit for classified
employees in the executive branch who are not eligible for
overtime compensation."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: LAW ENFORCEMENT; CONCEALING ONE'S FACE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HANNAN
01/20/26 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/26
01/20/26 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/26 (H) STA, JUD
02/10/26 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/09/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/09/25 (H) JUD, STA
04/16/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/16/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/25 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/25 (H) Moved HB 180 Out of Committee
04/25/25 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/25 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR
04/28/25 (H) DP: UNDERWOOD, EISCHEID, KOPP
04/28/25 (H) DNP: VANCE
04/28/25 (H) NR: GRAY
02/10/26 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: STATE EMPLOYEES: FLEXIBLE TIME CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): JOSEPHSON
03/10/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/25 (H) STA, FIN
02/10/26 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented an overview of
HB 250.
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Sara Hannan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Hannan, prime
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 250.
STUART RELAY, Staff
Representative Ashley Carrick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes under a proposed
committee substitute for HB 250; reviewed the fiscal notes for
HB 180.
KATHY WALLACE, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview and a sectional
analysis of HB 180.
LAUREN WHITESIDE, Operations Manager
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 180.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented an overview of
HB 130.
KEN ALPER, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the prime sponsor,
Representative Josephson, gave a presentation during the hearing
on HB 130.
IAN MINNOCK. representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:17:06 PM
CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives
Holland, McCabe, St. Clair, Story, and Carrick were present at
the call to order. Representatives Himschoot and Vance arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 250-LAW ENFORCEMENT; CONCEALING ONE'S FACE
3:18:30 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 250, "An Act establishing the crime of wearing
a mask in public while acting as a peace officer; and providing
for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented an overview of HB 250. This bill would make
it a crime for peace officers in Alaska to wear face coverings
in the performance of their duties. She said that HB 250 is a
pro law enforcement piece of legislation. She stated that it
promotes and secures public trust and the dignity and integrity
of peace officers working in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said masked law enforcement is wrong on
many levels. When officers conceal their faces, they compromise
transparency and communication. Masks get in the way of
deescalation efforts. In fact, they do the opposite, they
increase fear and intimidation in already tense circumstances.
She said being unable to see an officer can lead to
misunderstandings and needless tragic outcomes. When officers
can't be identified, the risk that someone might impersonate law
enforcement to commit crimes is increased. There are exemptions
in the bill for officers working undercover, face shields for
safety that don't obscure the face, medical masks or
respirators, and masks for protection against smoke. In the
end, the legislature wants Alaskans to trust peace officers and
does not want regulation from the federal government to affect
how officers conduct themselves in Alaska.
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hannan, prime sponsor,
presented a sectional analysis of HB 250 [hard copy included in
the committee file] which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 1: Amends AS 11.56 by adding a new section
11.56.880stating that a peace officer is in violation
of the law if they conceal their face with a mask or
disguise while interacting with the public in an
official capacity.
This section also lists circumstances under which the
law would not apply. They include:
• If the officer is on an undercover assignment
• If the officer is wearing a shield designed to
protect their face from harm without obscuring their
face
• If the officer is wearing a medical mask or
respirator for health reasons and has a statement from
a licensed physician stating as much
• Or if the officer is wearing a mask to protect from
exposure to smoke.
Section 1 also states that wearing a mask in public
while acting as a peace officer is a class B
misdemeanor (punishable by up to 90 days in jail
and/or a fine of up to $2000).
Sec. 2: Amends uncodified law to state that the act
applies only to offenses committed on or after the
effective date of the act.
Sec. 3: Provides an immediate effective date for the
act.
3:23:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR asked how many times this has occurred
in Alaska with the masks.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that Alaska doesn't keep
centralized statistics.
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR remarked that it is unknown how big of
a problem this is. He asked if this would affect federal agents
working in Alaska.
MR. CLARK replied that the bill was drafted to include
prohibiting federal agents from masking in Alaska.
3:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked why masks are being worn to the
degree that is seen right now and whether this law would
interact or oppose specific directive given by federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that she doesn't know why federal
officers in one branch are doing this. She wants to preempt
this action and reflect the standard of policing wanted in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked why peace officers are trying to
mask their identity.
MR. CLARK replied that mostly reported in the press, federal
agents feel they may be targeted for harassment or other
criminal retribution on the part of the public. All public
officials face some risk in the jobs they do.
3:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated there is a study that says there is
a one thousand percent increase in assaults on federal officers
and their families due to being able to be identified. He asked
how HB 250 would address doxing an officer and whether the
sponsor would be open to establishing a felony charge.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that [doxing] is criminal behavior
that is already in statute and should be prosecuted.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that there is a supremacy clause
lawsuit in California. He asked how HB 250 would address
federal officers.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered that the court had a ruling
yesterday, and if regulating to the same standard, there is no
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said by criminalizing masking then a
federal peace officer who puts on a mask must get a ticket from
the Alaska law enforcement officer.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the first question is
identification, and it is critical to be able to enforce the
law.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that every law officer in Alaska
has a badge and a name tag. Law officers must identify
themselves by name and badge number in Anchorage. He suggested
this was just a solution in search of a problem that doesn't
exist.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that her constituents would like to
have an open relationship with law enforcement. She said masked
law enforcement seems to be counter to deescalation as verbal
cues aren't always the clearest indicator.
CHAIR CARRICK noted that Representative McCabe had said that a
peace officer has a badge and must identify themself. She
observed that this legislation is in partial response to what is
being seen in the country. She asked if ICE agents have the
same guidelines with a name badge and having to identify
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied she doesn't know as this is
targeted at Alaska peace officers. Most Alaskans are satisfied
with the transparency of officers. Alaskans and peace officers
following police standards continue to be known and respected by
Alaskans.
CHAIR CARRICK asked if the bill is limited to peace officers in
Alaska.
MR. CLARK replied that the bill would include law officers sent
to perform duties in Alaska.
3:36:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the bill sponsor for bringing this
bill forward. She commented that Alaska wants to maintain trust
with police officers. She asked whether HB 202 should also
include village public safety officers (VPSOs).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the definition includes
VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about Representative McCabe's concern
about a peace officer being targeted. She asked whether there
is an exception that would allow a police officer to wear a mask
if they were under a possible threat.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that threatening, harassing, and
vandalism are already criminal acts that should be prosecuted.
MR. CLARK said included in the ruling from yesterday [in
California], the judge wrote a rule that prohibits from wearing
masks does not enable criminals to harm them. These are already
criminal acts and a rule prohibiting law enforcement by wearing
masks or requiring them to have identification does not
facilitate them harming officers.
3:39:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Representative Hannan wanted to
stop federal overreach that could institute this practice in
Alaska. She inquired whether there is a specific movement such
as a bill in Congress or an Executive Order.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied not currently. As has been seen,
a lot of police departments have changed standards. She opined
that Alaska should not comply with what is being done at the
federal level.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the sponsor's constituents want
open communication with officers without a mask. She stated
that peace officers have been doxed and there has been harm to
them and their families. She said it seems like you are
prioritizing comfort of constituents to the safety of officers.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that if the police department
were going to be masked and identities not known to the
community, then Alaska is going to have secret police. Most
people know who police are in the community. In Alaska, the
legislature wants to build community trust.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that because of the tension and lack
of respect for law enforcement, crime in Alaska, especially in
Anchorage, has been high. She asked if the bill sponsor had
conversations regarding how this would affect recruitment and
retention.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied no.
3:44:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted there is a medical exception in the
bill for someone who obtains a doctor's note. He asked the bill
sponsor if she would be open to an amendment to prevent any
public official from requiring masking in a public building.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered no.
3:46:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that peace officers are part of the
community. She said harm can happen when losing that
connection. She hears the seriousness of what Representative
Hannan is bringing before the committee.
3:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if any part of the bill was
mitigated by a name tag or body camera ("cam").
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said that the primary interaction of law
enforcement is deescalation, and any time a face is covered,
that limits the ability to communicate through loss of facial
expressions. The proposed legislation aims to eliminate
barriers and enhance communication. Body cams are a backup
device.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated that during the COVID-19
pandemic, teachers had increased difficulty of communicating
[while wearing a mask].
3:50:21 PM
CHAIR CARRICK stated that the legislature wanted to prevent this
from being standard practice in Alaska. She asked if there was
anything else on the horizon.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she didn't review all police
standards to look at what may be evolving.
CHAIR CARRICK stated that she appreciated Representative Story's
comments. The noted that the committee substitute for HB 202,
although narrowly tailored, offers "lots of exceptions" applied
to the realities of living in Alaska. She said the fullness of
communication happens with facial recognition and is targeted
with this legislation.
3:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 250, Version 34-LS1284\I, C. Radford,
1/21/26, as a working document.
CHAIR CARRICK objected and asked for the sectional analysis to
be presented.
STUART RELAY, Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the proposed CS for HB 250 adds an
exemption for cold weather masks, specifically, a mask while
outdoors when the temperature is at or below 32 degrees
Fahrenheit.
3:53:28 PM
CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Version I was before the committee.
3:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he was concerned about this bill as
someone who has been publicly doxed. There are some situations
for anonymity, and this bill takes away a tool. There may be
times when things get a little heated and violent and maybe the
legislature doesn't want officers' families exposed.
CHAIR CARRICK asked the bill sponsor whether a masked individual
has more negative encounters and escalations because the
inability to communicate nonverbally.
3:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the worst antidotal example
with masked officers is in Minnesota where two citizens were
shot with fatal results. She acknowledged that it is unknown
whether this incident would have been avoided if the officers
had been unmasked.
CHAIR CARRICK said that when considering officer safety,
Representative McCabe's concern about doxing is understandable.
On the other hand, there could be issues with masking limiting
communication and leading to escalation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested, in the interest of fairness, an
amendment that would prohibit protestors from wearing a mask, so
that the officers "can easily identify those that are creating
the ruckus."
3:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that HB 202, Version I, added an
exception when the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
She asked whether that would include wind chill.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN indicated that the choice of 32 degrees
Fahrenheit is not that cold but allows for [wind chill
situations].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the bill sponsor if she was opposed
to peace officers "wearing a beards," which could have an effect
similar [to wearing a mask].
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that she could recognize
Representative St. Clair with or without a beard.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked that the committee have the police
standards board come to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR shared his experience working
undercover in narcotics. He stated that doxing does happen. He
asked if the bill sponsor had looked at doing anything through
the Alaska Police Standards Council.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered no, she wanted to address it
directly.
MR. CLARK added that the law is meant to apply to the federal
agents and the Alaska Police Standards Council wouldn't be
involved in this case.
4:04:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked if the supremacy clause applied in
this case.
MR. CLARK replied that he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if protestors get paid with
public funds.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained her point was that the people
in the proposed legislation are paid with public dollars, while
protestors are not.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said thanked committee members for their
time and attention.
4:06:14 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced HB 250, Version I, was held over.
HB 180-ELECTRONIC DRIVER'S LICENSES
4:06:44 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 180 "An Act relating to the powers of the
commissioner of administration with respect to motor vehicles;
relating to electronic identification cards; relating to
electronic driver's licenses and permits; and providing for an
effective date."
KATHY WALLACE, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, presented an overview and a sectional
analysis of HB 180 on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by
request of the governor. This legislation modernizes Alaska's
motor vehicle identification framework by authorizing the
Department of Administration to issue electronic driver's
licenses, permits, and identification (ID) cards while
maintaining physical credentials. This bill establishes
regulatory authority for the issuance and use of digital
credentials. The bill clarifies requirements for possession and
presentation on a mobile device and provides privacy protection.
The bill expands the commissioner's authority to enter into data
sharing agreements that support identity verification and
drivers' record systems.
MS. WALLACE reviewed the sectional analysis of HB 180 [included
in the committee file], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 18.65.310(a) to distinguish that a
"physical" Identification Card will now be $15.
Section 2: This section amends Alaska Statute
18.65.310 by adding a new subsection which establishes
that upon application, the department may issue an
electronic identification card to a person who
currently possesses a physical identification card,
and that the electronic identification cards can be a
digital companion to physical identification cards,
yet it is still mandated that a person retain their
physical identification card. This section also
requires the department to adopt regulations governing
the issuance and use of electronic identification
cards. Additionally, the section includes privacy
protections by explicitly stating that presenting an
electronic ID to law enforcement does not grant
permission for officers to search or access any other
data on the mobile device while also granting them
immunity from liability for any damage to the device
unless intentional misconduct is involved.
Section 3: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 18.65.320(b) to specify that if an
identification card is cancelled, they would need to
return the physical card to the department.
Section 4: This section adds a new subsection into
Alaska Statute 28.05.021 which will allow the
Commissioner of Administration to enter into
agreements with a law enforcement agency, a
governmental agency or program or a data exchange
service.
Section 5: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 28.05.051 to state that if a license is
suspended, revoked, or cancelled, they would need to
return the physical card to the department. This
section also allows for designated officials to take
possession of a physical license in the event of
invalidity.
Section 6: This section amends Alaska Statute
28.15.011(b) to require all drivers to have a physical
or electronic driver's license when operating a motor
vehicle.
Section 7: This section amends Alaska Statute 28.15 by
adding authority in a new section for the Department
of Administration to begin issuing electronic driver's
licenses or permits to customers who possess a
physical driver's license or permit, which they will
be required to retain. This section also requires the
Commissioner to adopt regulations for issuance and use
of electronic licenses and permits along with an
option for the commissioner to require the physical
driver's license be carried on their person in certain
circumstances. Lastly, this section requires the
department to display notice of revocation,
cancellation, limitation, restriction, or suspension
across the front of the electronic license.
Section 8: This section adds "physical or electronic"
into Alaska Statute 28.15.131(a) which requires a
driver to always have a driver's license in their
possession when driving a motor vehicle.
Section 9: This section adds a new subsection to
Alaska Statute 28.15.131 to protect the drivers'
privacy by prohibiting officers from accessing other
data on mobile devices when checking an electronic
license. It also grants immunity to law enforcement
from liability for damage to a mobile device when
verifying an electronic driver's license, except in
cases of intentional misconduct.
Section 10: This section amends Alaska Statute
28.15.151(a) to add retention requirements of every
application for an electronic driver's license or
permit as well as copies of the electronic licenses
and permits.
Section 11: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 28.15.165(b) to signify a law
enforcement officer to seize the physical driver's
license after failure of a sobriety test or refusal to
submit to a chemical test.
Section 12: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.166(a) by adding clarifying language mandating a
driver to surrender their physical license when
requesting an administrative review.
Section 13: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 28.15.182(d) to signify the Alaska
Court System shall require the surrender the physical
driver's license when issuing a Limited License in the
circumstance of an accident which caused the death of
another.
Section 14: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.183(b) by adding clarifying language ensuring
law enforcement to seize a driver's physical license
or physical permit.
Section 15: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 28.15.184(a) to signify a customer who
is a minor must surrender the physical driver's
license upon request of an administrative hearing if
it wasn't seized previously by law enforcement.
Section 16: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.187(b) by adding clarifying language ensuring
law enforcement to seize a driver's physical license
or physical permit when violating any driving laws.
Section 17: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.189(a) by adding clarifying language mandating a
driver to surrender their physical license when
requesting a revocation review.
Section 18: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.191(c) by adding clarifying language mandating
courts must forward surrendered physical licenses to
the DMV when issuing a suspension or revocation.
Section 19: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.191(g) by adding clarifying language mandating
courts must forward surrendered physical licenses to
the DMV when a driver is ordered to refrain from
consuming alcoholic beverages as part of their
sentencing.
Section 20: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.191(h) by adding clarifying language mandating
parole boards to require a person to surrender their
physical license and identification card when subject
to cancellation.
Section 21: This section amends Alaska Statue
28.15.201(b) by adding clarifying language to require
the surrender of a physical driver's license when
courts issue limited driving privileges.
Section 22: This section adds the word "physical" into
Alaska Statute 28.20.560(a) to signify when a customer
whose license or registration is suspended, or whose
policy of insurance or bond is canceled or terminated
shall surrender the physical license to the
department. This section also adds clarifying language
which states if a license isn't surrendered then DMV
should contact the Department of Public Safety to
immediately direct an officer to obtain possession of
the license or registration.
Section 23: This section amends AS 28.22.041(d) to
require the surrender of the physical license when the
DMV issues a limited license following a suspension
for failing to comply with the mandatory insurance
laws.
Section 24: This section amends Alaska Statute
28.33.100 by adding subsection (j) which provides
authority to issue an electronic commercial driver's
license.
Section 25: This section amends Alaska Statute
28.33.140(i) which clarifies that a person
disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle
must surrender their physical license to the
department.
Section 26: This section amends Alaska Statute
28.35.034 to state that a person who has their license
or permit revoked under Alaska Statute 28.15.165 or
Alaska Statute 28.15.181 must surrender their physical
license.
Section 27: This section amends Alaska Statute
33.16.150(i)to require that parolees who are ordered
to refrain alcohol must surrender their physical
license and that physical license must be forwarded to
the department.
Section 28: This section provides an immediate
effective date per AS 01.10.070(c).
4:15:12 PM
STUART RELAY, Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick, Alaska State
Legislature, reviewed the fiscal notes for HB 180. The two
fiscal notes are both zero. He noted this wasn't the first time
for this legislation; in 2022, Senate Bill 194 was very similar.
The last time, the fiscal note was quite hefty and thorough.
The fiscal note for Senate Bill 194 listed $3.7 million for year
one, $2.6 million for year two, $2.1 million for year three, $1
million for year four, and $500,000 per year thereafter.
CHAIR CARRICK asked about the cost of implementation and the
differences in fiscal notes.
LAUREN WHITESIDE, Operations Manager, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Administration, state that when the bill
was first introduced, the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was
in the planning phases of the mobile credential and absorbed all
the costs for development.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the language of Senate
Bill 194 was identical or similar.
MS. WHITESIDE replied there have been several iterations and
variations over the last few legislative sessions.
4:19:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether, if the license were
revoked, the stamp would appear without accessing the Internet.
She wanted to confirm there was no glitch in getting the stamp.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that the digital driver's license would be
removed from the phone. Law enforcement officers would be able
to see in the law enforcement operating system it is revoked.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if the DMV has already rolled out the
information technology for this digital driver's license and
spent millions. She stated that this feels backwards, as the
DMV didn't have statutory authority.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that because there was no statutory
prohibition on a mobile credential, the DMV moved forward with
the development. She stated that it is optional.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that now the DMV is asking for
statutory authority. She directed attention to Section 4 and
asked what government agency may need this program.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that Section 4 is because of the driver's
license verification system. It is the connection to the Social
Security system that Alaska has pulled out of. It prevents
Alaskans from applying for social security (SS) cards online.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied that within the DMV, someone made
the decision that prohibited Alaskans from getting their SS
cards online. She asked what data system is going to be
utilized by the administration in this agreement.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that she didn't understand the question.
She said Section 4 is related to the [Driver License Data
Verification Service] system and DMV has been trying to get this
amendment so Alaska can participate again.
4:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the administration is spending
money before having the statutory authority for something
already done. She is concerned about Alaskan's data. She asked
why addressing the social security issue wasn't done as a
standalone bill.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that HB 213 was a standard-alone bill last
year.
CHAIR CARRICK stated that she is supportive of this legislation.
She echoed Representative Vance's concern that the
administration is going forward without statutory authority.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she has been on the finance
subcommittee for several years. It has been hard for Alaska
elders to be compliant with the REAL ID Act. There has been a
lack of communication on how the legislature could have helped
Alaskans. She has lots of concerns about this bill.
4:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR asked if the state requires a secondary
form of ID.
MS. WHITESIDE replied the mobile is a companion credential and
must have the original physical credential.
4:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR asked if the mobile system is redundant
or duplicative.
MS. WHITESIDE replied this is the national standard. A few
states have gone standalone as phones die.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said it is his understanding that the DMV
is prohibited from sharing data beyond what is required in the
REAL ID Act. He asked how Section 4 would interact or conflict
with the Act.
MS. WHITESIDE replied it is consistent with the REAL ID Act.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked what happens under the legislation
if his license were revoked. He pointed to language in Section
7, on page 3, which suggests there would be a mark or indication
on the driver's license.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that when the license is revoked, it would
be deleted from the phone. Should this bill be passed, further
development will need to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the digital ID will be
acceptable for voting and purchasing alcohol.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that that is the goal. Right now, it is
not. The division just recently got federal Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) acceptance.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said a question he is frequently asked is
when Alaska is going to get digital identification. He noted
that currently the phone holds credit card information and car
insurance information. He stated this is the wave of the
future.
MS. WHITESIDE replied that Alaska is at the forefront of this
movement. It is the sixth state to be added into the digital
trust.
CHAIR CARRICK stated that she likes the digital driver's
license, which is the subject of HB 180, and it will be taken up
in the future.
4:36:00 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 180 was held over.
4:36:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:36 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.
HB 130-STATE EMPLOYEES: FLEXIBLE TIME CREDIT
4:39:49 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 130 "An Act relating to flexible time credit
for classified employees in the executive branch who are not
eligible for overtime compensation."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 130, presented an overview of the bill. He
called HB 130 a simple bill with a fiscal note of zero dollars.
He shared a story about a classified employee that took a
promotion and was then ineligible for overtime pay. He is a
geologist with the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities. He became ineligible for overtime pay but got
compensatory time. He gets compensatory time only after working
45 hours on his 37.5-hour work week, which creates a "donut
hole" of non-payment. He feels that the employee needs the full
compensatory time.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, "How is it beneficial to the
employee?" She followed up with a question about supplemental
requests for the Department of Corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that the Department of
Corrections' officers are allowed time and a half or double
time. This employee, after working 45 hours, would qualify for
compensatory time. There is a gap of time between 37.5 and 45
hours where he is working for free.
4:46:40 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee file], on behalf of Representative
Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 130. He started by explaining
that only some public employees are overtime eligible and
usually it is around Range 20 when they hit the exempt status.
On slide 3, "What happens for non-eligible employees," he
defined compensatory time also referred to as flexible time
credit or comp time. This time is not earned on an hour-to-hour
basis. He continued with slide 4, "What happens to non-eligible
employees?" There is a difference between the Alaska State
Employees Association (ASEA) and the Alaska Public Employees
Association (APEA). He gave examples of the donut hole of non-
payment with both units. These rules set a minimum standard
with the labor contracts. Slide 5 outlines what happens when
employees are promoted. He gave the details from the example of
the constituent shared earlier by Representative Josephson. On
slide 6, "What does HB 130 do?," he noted that the bill adds a
new section to the state's personnel statutes that classified
employees must accrue flexible time credit for each hour or
fraction of an hour more than the standard work week. This
change is written as a minimum requirement for state union
contracts after the effective date of the bill. There is no
actual cost to the bill. On slide 7, "How many employees are
impacted?," he stated there were overtime costs which are
impacted by letters of agreement. Broadly about 4,000 people
would be impacted by this legislation.
4:53:59 PM
IAN MINNOCK gave invited testimony in support of HB 130. He
clarified that he works for DOT&PF but speaks on his own behalf.
He is a certified geologist which gives him professional
overtime exemption. He took a pay cut with a promotion. He
explained that he worked 935 hours in the field with 318 hours
of mandatory overtime; of these 57.5 hours were not compensated.
He is an outlier in the state. The supervisor union fixed this
in their last contract. There is a lack of transparency about
this donut hole of nonpayment. This bill looks for the 1:1
ratio of work time to time accrued.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the credit for one full
hour is for each hour worked.
MR. ALPER replied that the bill as written would be each hour or
fraction of an hour.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked how this extra time worked is
managed and approved. If left unmanaged, then employees could
bank extra hours.
MR. ALPER replied that the bill doesn't modify the existing
system. There are personnel rules for banking and tracking of
hours.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked why this isn't being resolved in the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
MR. ALPER replied that the unions are unable to get this through
CBA. He added that by providing a minimum standard to what the
state must offer, the bill sponsor is attempting to "help that
process along."
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said, "Not willing to do that; get a new
negotiator."
5:01:05 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 130 was held over.
5:01:59 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:02
p.m.