Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/2018 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB267 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 23, 2018
1:51 p.m.
1:51:35 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:51 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
ALSO PRESENT
Tim Clark, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon; Brandon S.
Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Representative Matt Claman, Sponsor; Lizzie
Kubitz, Staff, Representative Matt Claman; Nikole Nelson,
Executive Director, Alaska Legal Services Corporation.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tom Brookover, Director, Sport Fish Division, Department of
Fish and Game, Anchorage; Kathryn Monfreda, Chief, Criminal
Records and Identification Bureau, Division of Statewide
Services, Department of Public Safety, Anchorage; Emilie
Beasley, Self, Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
SUMMARY
HB 106 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
HB 106 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 219(JUD)
CRIM HIST CHECK: ST EMPLOYEES/CONTRACTORS
CSHB 219(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 267(RES)
RELEASE HUNTING/FISHING RECORDS TO MUNI
CSHB 267(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with
three "do pass" recommendations and three "no
recommendation"; and with one new fiscal note
from the Department of Fish and Game; one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DFG);
and one previously published fiscal impact note:
FN2 (CED).
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 267(RES)
"An Act requiring the release of certain records
relating to big game hunters, guided hunts, and guided
sport fishing activities to municipalities for
verification of taxes payable; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair MacKinnon reported that the bill was previously
heard in committee on April 16, 2018 and during the morning
meeting on April 23, 2018.
1:53:23 PM
Senator Micciche relayed concerns over the confidentiality
of log book information. He asked for specifics regarding
log book information and whether the information would
remain confidential when the municipalities received the
data.
TOM BROOKOVER, DIRECTOR, SPORT FISH DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), answered
that the division collected the information through a
program that required sportfishing business owners and
guides to register with the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) and to complete a log book. He delineated that the
program included two guide books; one for salt water
fishing and one for fresh water fishing. He listed the
required information: The Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
boat registration number or the United States (US) Coast
Guard number along with the locations where guide services
were provided; data for the specific angler including the
name or license number, the catch species, and number
harvested. The sport fishing business owner was responsible
for turning the log book over to the division. He furthered
that the program was in place since 2005. The purpose of
the program was to collect data needed for management,
conservation of the resource, and regulation of the
industry. He pointed out that the division conducted an
Annual Statewide Harvest Survey (ASHS) from guided and
unguided anglers and on-site creel surveys (or angler
interviews) at specific sites on specific times in addition
to the logbook program. He indicated that the creel survey
and the logbooks provided detailed information versus the
generalized information collected via the ASHS. The
logbooks were a significant source of data due to the level
of specificity provided. In some cases, it was the only
information collected and the department wanted to ensure
the "integrity and quality" of the data. He related that
the division questioned what purpose the logbook data would
serve the municipalities. The division used the data for
fishery management, conservation, and guided activity
regulation, which was different from the assumed purpose of
verifying municipal tax reporting. He voiced the division's
concern regarding the proposed use of the data and noted
that the division was uncertain about the consequences of
providing the information to municipalities.
1:58:50 PM
Senator Micciche ascertained that the logbook location
information did not require GPS data and the location was
only identified by name of the waterbody. Mr. Brookover
replied in the affirmative and added that the freshwater
logbook requested the name of lake, stream, or river by
area, and the salt water location was identified through
coded areas. The division provided a prescribed list of
locations for both fresh or saltwater.
Senator Micciche informed the committee that the
information was protected through AS 11.56.850, Official
Misconduct statutes, and carried a Class A misdemeanor for
violations and AS 11.56.860, relating to Misuse of
Confidential Information another Class A misdemeanor. He
deduced that the only reason the data would be used was to
determine the number of days of service provided to the
client and if it matched the tax information.
2:00:43 PM
TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, confirmed
that Senator Micciche's statements were correct and
indicated that the consequences for breaching
confidentiality at the municipal level was "serious."
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Brookover if the data the
division would share with a municipality would contain a
warning against misuse. Mr. Brookover responded that the
division would supply the information in a summary format
as opposed to the logbook sheets and was consistent with
how DFG supplied other types of requested information. He
was uncertain how or if a warning in respect to
confidentiality would be addressed.
Senator Micciche understood that the information would be
aggregated and include the total number of trips but not
the exact locations. He asked for confirmation. Mr.
Brookover answered in the affirmative. He noted that the
bill used the words "may release records" and did not
include details about the level of specificity. The
division would initially aggregate the data, but the
specificity depended on the municipalities needs and how
the activities were taxed. However, the bill did not
prohibit the division from responding to more specific
requests, if the tax policy was detailed and taxed items
like the number of anglers, specific location, or time
periods. He summarized that the division would aggregate
the information but provide more detailed information by
request. Senator Micciche emphasized that the state
"protected tax payer information in every other aspect" and
warned that he would "watch" the flow of information. The
legislative intent was not to provide specific information.
He understood that the intent of the bill was for data that
provided "an aggregated cross check" of information.
2:04:40 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected his statement and read from
the bill:
The bill shall make hunting records and activity
reports available to a municipality that levels a tax
on those activities if the information concerned hunts
or activities occurring within the four years
proceeding the date and the municipalities request the
records for the purpose of verifying taxes payable and
the municipality agree to maintain the confidentiality
of the records.
Co-Chair MacKinnon added that the municipality would
receive specific information, which was the only way a tax
audit could proceed.
Mr. Clark relayed that the municipality the sponsor had
been working closely with employed a simple flat tax per
day on the fishing and hunting activities within its
boundaries.
Vice-Chair Bishop referenced testimony that the lost
revenue amounted to between $50 thousand and $100 thousand
in the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He asked whether he was
correct. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon alerted that a fee would be charged to
the municipality that requested the data. She asked Mr.
Brookover whether the 4-year's prior information was easily
accessible. Mr. Brookover replied that the data was
available, but the division would need to configure the
data base and develop the summary reports to enable
responses to the request. He noted the fiscal note had
identified the implementation costs. Co-Chair MacKinnon
asked whether DFG would have to reenter the data. Mr.
Brookover responded in the negative and reiterated that the
summary reporting function would need to be created because
a municipal boundary did not match the division's location
boundaries but the data itself existed.
2:08:21 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon cited page 1, line 10 under AS 08.54.760
(b) and noted the words, "The department shall make hunt
records and activity reports available She turned to AS
16.05.815(a) on page 2, lines 20 and 21 and read the
following, "The department and the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission may release?" She asked about
the differences between the use of "may" or "shall." Mr.
Clark was uncertain. He guessed that use of the term for
the provision related to sport fishing "fit most logically"
with existing statute and the hunting records provision
was drafted as a new section.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the provision was not
exclusive to sport fishing and read the following from the
bill, "? the landings of fish, shellfish, or fishery
products, and annual statistical reports of fishermen,
buyers, and processors?" She inquired whether the area
where the fish was caught would be provided to the taxing
authority. Mr. Clark responded that when the statute
corresponded specifically to the logbook information, the
answer was in the affirmative. The logbook information was
providing the municipality confirmation that the activity
took place within its jurisdiction. Co-Chair MacKinnon
wondered whether that applied to commercial fishers. Mr.
Clark replied that the part of the provision concerning
commercial fishers was long existing and related to large
regions where the commercial fishery harvest was landed
versus where it was caught.
2:11:13 PM
Senator Stevens listed the three areas in the state that
collected the type of tax; the Lake and Peninsula Borough,
Sitka, and Yakutat. He noted that Yakutat was in his
district and thought that the tax was a per day tax and the
aggregate summary would be adequate. He asked whether Mr.
Clark knew how Yakutat structured its tax. He voiced that
Yakutat only received half of the amount of tax it was
owed. Mr. Clark recalled testimony from Yakutat's manager
that the tax was like a severance tax.
2:13:00 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT CSHB 267(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 267(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do
pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation"; and
with one new fiscal note from the Department of Fish and
Game; one previously published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DFG);
and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN2 (CED).
2:13:25 PM
AT EASE
2:15:55 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 219(JUD)
"An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties
require access to certain federal tax information;
relating to current or prospective contractors with
the state with access to certain federal tax
information; establishing state personnel procedures
required for employee access to certain federal tax
information; and providing for an effective date."
2:16:37 PM
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, presented the bill. He explained
that HB 219 authorized agencies to mandate national
criminal history record checks that included
fingerprinting, for state employees and contractors
accessing certain federal tax information. The Internal
Revenue Service's (IRS) "Publication 1075" (published by
the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
and updated September 30, 2016) specified the requirements
that state and local agencies must follow to obtain certain
federal tax information directly from the IRS. The IRS
enacted the measures to safeguard the information. He
related that the bill applied primarily to three
departments: The Department of Revenue, Child Support
Services Division and the Tax Division; the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), and the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS). He reiterated that
the 2016 update for Publication 1075 required the criminal
history record checks that included fingerprinting. The
state implemented the background checks but needed further
authority to require fingerprinting. He summarized that
essentially, the bill authorized the fingerprinting
requirement. The fingerprints were submitted to the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) who sent them to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the national
criminal history check.
2:18:53 PM
Mr. Spanos discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Amends AS 12.62.400 by adding a new subsection.
This will require an agency to submit the fingerprints
of current or prospective employees or contractors
whose job duties require access to federal tax
information (defined in AS 39.55.015(e)(3) and
36.30.960(d)(3)) to the Department of Public Safety
for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to obtain a criminal history record. Defines "agency",
"employee" and "contractor".
Section 2
Amends AS 36.30 by adding a new section.
This section establishes state personnel procedures
for obtaining and submitting fingerprints for current
or prospective contractors if a contract with the
state requires access to federal tax information.
Defines "agency", "contractor" and "federal tax
information".
Section 3
Amends AS 39 by adding a new chapter.
This new chapter addresses state personnel procedures
related to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.010
This section explains the purpose of the chapter-- to
establish procedures to safeguard federal tax
information which will apply to a current or
prospective state employee whose job duties require
access to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.015
This section requires current and prospective state
employees whose job duties require access to federal
tax information to provide information to an agency
for a state and national criminal history record
check. Defines "agency", "employee", "federal tax
information", "return", and "return information".
Section 4
Provides the effective date of July 1, 2018.
Senator Stevens asked what areas of the state the employees
that required fingerprinting were located. Mr. Spanos only
knew the location of the DOR employees that were primarily
located in Anchorage and Juneau. He offered that an
employee could go to any law enforcement agency for
fingerprinting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the Office of Children's
Services was affected by the bill. Mr. Spanos did not know
the answer.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered what the procedure was for
sending fingerprints to the FBI.
2:22:43 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), explained that fingerprints for employment
or licensing purposes were received as a "rolled" set of
fingerprints on a "hard card format." The department
digitized the fingerprints and compared them in the state's
system that was a consortium of 8 states systems in one
shared database. Subsequently, they were sent
electronically to the FBI for the background check. The FBI
destroyed the fingerprints after the background check was
completed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
2:24:35 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed the fiscal notes. He noted the
four zero fiscal notes accompanying the bill. The first was
for DOC, allocated to Administrative Services, FN6 (COR),
the second was for DHSS, allocated to Administrative
Support Services, FN7 (DHS), and the third was for DPS,
allocated to Criminal Justice Information Systems Program,
FN9 (DPS). Lastly, he pointed to the DLWD zero fiscal note,
FN6 (LWF) allocated to Unemployment Insurance and relayed
that the anticipated cost would be covered within the
current budget through federal funds. He continued with the
fiscal impact note for DOR, FN10 (REV), allocated to the
Tax Division in the amount of $4.8 thousand for FY 19 and
$500 in the outyears. He read from the analysis on the page
2 of the fiscal note:
This bill authorizes state agencies that receive
Federal Tax Information (FTI) to undergo federal
background checks as now required in IRS Publication
1075. Background checks would be conducted on all
current and new employees at a cost of $47 for each
completed investigation.
The Tax Division estimates that 102 employees will be
fingerprinted in the first year, and approximately 10
employees in subsequent years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether DOR had to adopt new
regulations with passage of the legislation. Mr. Spanos
answered in the negative. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked why the
department did not calculate the cost of fingerprints as
revenue on the fiscal note. Mr. Spanos replied that the
cost of fingerprinting did not change the department's
revenue. He added that losing the ability to receive the
federal information would negatively impact the
department. Co-Chair MacKinnon inquired whether DOR was
charging anyone to perform fingerprinting. Mr. Spanos
responded that DOR planned to pay for the fingerprinting
and not charge the employees.
2:27:07 PM
AT EASE
2:29:07 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Bishop pointed to the following from the fiscal
note, "An updated background check will also be required
every ten years." He assumed that did include
fingerprinting. Mr. Spanos replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked what changed on fingerprints after
10 years. Mr. Spanos responded that he thought the same
thing and considered maintaining a record of the
fingerprints for resubmission if possible. However, the
background checks were required every 10 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that some of the fiscal notes
reported that fingerprinting cost $47 per set, and the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) believed that a small
amount of revenue would be generated from fingerprinting.
However, she understood that Mr. Spanos stated DOR would
not charge employees for fingerprinting. She wanted to
discuss the issue of storing someone's personal information
and any liability issue that might result for the state as
a result. She requested further review of the DPS fiscal
note.
2:31:16 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop pointed to one last DOR fiscal impact
note allocated to the Child Support Services Division in
the amount of $10 thousand for FY 19 and $1.5 thousand in
the outyears. He mentioned that $6.6 thousand was in
Federal Receipts and the remaining $3.4 thousand in
Undesignated General Funds (UGF). He read from page 2 of
the analysis:
The Child Support Services Division has 196 employees
who will be fingerprinted in the first year, and
approximately 32 employees each subsequent year. Every
10 years, background checks must be renewed.
Background checks would be conducted on all current
and new employees at a cost of $47 for each completed
investigation.
Vice-Chair Bishop relayed that he had concerns regarding
what happened to the background check information after ten
years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon questioned whether regulations were
necessary for the Division of Child Support Services with
passage of the bill. She purported that the fiscal note did
not speak to the question.
2:33:04 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon returned to the DPS fiscal note and
asked Ms. Monfreda to comment regarding storage of
employee's background information for ten years and the FBI
destruction of fingerprints. She referred to an earlier
version of the DPS fiscal note that reported revenue from
the collection of fingerprints. Ms. Monfreda reiterated
that the department's fiscal note was zero because the fee
collected for processing the fingerprints was equal to the
cost charged by the FBI, which billed DPS monthly. She
continued that the reason for the 10 year renewal was that
fingerprints changed through the aging process or were worn
down. She reiterated that the FBI destroyed the
fingerprints and DPS stored the fingerprints. Fingerprints
over one-year old were unacceptable to the FBI. Co-Chair
MacKinnon confirmed that DPS was storing the fingerprints.
Ms. Monfreda replied in the affirmative.
CSHB 219(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:35:20 PM
AT EASE
2:35:51 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act allowing appropriations to the civil legal
services fund from court filing fees."
2:36:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He explained the legislation. He
communicated that the bill would safeguard Alaskans' access
to the civil justice system by creating a stable and
sustainable mechanism for funding the Alaska Legal Services
Corporation (ALSC), protecting those who cannot afford to
hire an attorney of their own. The ALSC provided help to
seniors, veterans, disabled Alaskans, children, low income
workers, consumers, and domestic violence victims. The
Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute [SCS HB 106(JUD)]
allowed the legislature to appropriate 5 percent of the
filing fees paid to the Alaska Court System during the
previous fiscal year into the already existing Civil Legal
Services Fund. He furthered that the fund was created in
2007 with bipartisan support to help ensure that civil
legal aid was available to Alaska's disadvantaged
population. He elaborated that deposits to the fund were
generated from 15 percent of civil punitive damage awards
at the discretion of the legislature. The legislature was
authorized to distribute the funds to organizations that
provided civil legal services to low income Alaskans. In
2011, ALSC received its only appropriation from the fund in
the amount of $110 thousand. The amount was insufficient to
address the critical unmet need for civil legal assistance.
He noted that in 2017 the attorney general reported that in
the last four years the state only collected $15 thousand
in punitive damages. He furthered that the Alaska Legal
Services Corporation was established in 1967 and was a
nonprofit charitable 501(c)(3), whose funding comes from a
variety of state, federal, and private sources.
Representative Claman continued that the Alaska Legal
Services Corporation endeavored to serve a growing number
of eligible applicants. Since 1984, the number of Alaskans
who qualified for legal services had more than doubled,
from 41,000 to over 100,000. Currently, the state's
contribution to ALSC was only a fraction of what it was 30
years ago. The state appropriated $1.2 million in 1984 with
the appropriation declining to $450 thousand in 2016. The
corporation had to turn away hundreds of families each
year. The legislation attempted to bridge the civil justice
gap by stabilizing ALSC funding and providing civil legal
aid to all Alaskans, not just the few who can afford it.
Representative Claman relayed from personal experience that
his former law practice had volunteered for many years,
working with the ALSC performing intake interviews with
clients and received a Bar Association award for its work.
He personally observed that ALSC's demand for services was
much higher than they could provide and underscored the
importance of the bill.
2:40:13 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, explained
the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Amends AS 37.05.590 relating to the Civil Legal
Services Fund by inserting language that authorizes
the legislature to appropriate up to 25 percent of the
filing fees received by the Alaska Court System during
the previous fiscal year into the already created
Civil Legal Services Fund.
2:42:36 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
2:42:55 PM
NIKOLE NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION, shared that the ALSC was a non-profit law firm
dedicated to ensuring access to justice for all Alaskans in
the civil legal system. The corporation strove to bridge
Alaska's civil justice gap for 50 years. She explained why
it was vital to support civil legal aid. She conveyed that
both the state and federal constitutions guaranteed due
process and equal protection under the law. However, civil
legal aid was significantly lacking and created an
"enormous justice gap" between individuals who needed civil
legal aid and those that could attain it. She voiced that
the mission of ALSC was to ensure fairness for all in the
civil justice system. She delineated that the corporation
provided legal help in protecting individuals' livelihood,
health, safety, and families. The corporation offered
direct advice and representation as well as self-help
information for the public. The corporation maintained a
hotline for advice and provided community education and
clinics. The corporation had 11 regional offices and 6
medical legal partnerships that enabled it to expand its
reach statewide. The offices were located in Anchorage,
Juneau, Fairbanks, Kotzebue, Ketchikan, Nome, Bethel,
Dillingham, Kenai, Palmer, Utqiagvik, Sitka, and Kodiak.
Each office was staffed locally and relied on a vast
network of pro bono volunteers due to limited resources.
She described the type of clients the ALSC served. She
elucidated that women who suffered spousal abuse often in
front of their children, or a grandfather who supported his
grandchildren and was afraid of losing his home due to a
predatory lender, or a commercial fisher who spent her all
money on boat repair and the boat subsequently caught on
fire, or a disabled veteran denied federal Veteran's
Affairs benefits were all examples of individuals that
asked ALSC for help on a daily basis. She emphasized that a
civil legal solution existed for all the problems she
described and the constitutional right for a criminal court
appointed attorney was not extended to civil cases.
Ms. Nelson continued that the ALSC was at the "forefront of
fighting the epidemic of domestic violence that plagued the
state, serving over 500 victims per year." In addition, the
corporation protected over 1000 seniors and their
caregivers and assisted with wills, probates, and power of
attorney. The corporation helped over 500 hundred veterans
and 300 disabled individuals gain access to healthcare and
benefits and 350 families fend off foreclosure and illegal
evictions. The ALSC made civil legal services a "reality"
for rural Alaskans, which represented over 40 percent of
its clients in 182 different communities. The corporation
assisted over 3000 families and 7000 individuals with more
than 43 thousand visits to its website and 2000 individuals
attended its clinics and self-help workshops. She noted a
2012 study by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA), which found that for every dollar invested in ALSC
it returned $5 to the state. She relayed that ALSC saved
the state $600 thousand in avoided emergency shelter costs,
$2.6 million for domestic violence victims' medical care
and counseling costs and helped disperse federal funds into
the economy by assisting those that earned federal benefits
receive them.
2:48:31 PM
Ms. Nelson furthered her testimony. She relayed that ALSC
turned away hundreds of families last year with compelling
needs at the rate of one for every one family served. She
emphasized that the rejected cases had merit and civil
recourse was available but ALSC lacked the staff and
resources to assist those in need. She stressed that
funding had not kept pace with the growing need. The
corporation was "incredibly cost efficient" and 80 percent
of cases were resolved out of court with the average case
costing $600. She reported that the starting salary for an
Anchorage attorney was $44 thousand per year. The
corporation leveraged the resources of donated office space
and over $500 thousand in volunteer services. She
emphasized that HB 106 would help bridge the justice gap
and ensure that the principle of "justice for all" remained
a priority.
Senator Olson was impressed by ALSC and the pro bono
services it received. He asked how many law offices
provided pro bono services in the state. Ms. Nelson replied
that the corporation had a pool of approximately 850 active
pro bono attorneys each year. Senator Olson inquired about
the number of attorneys ALSC had on staff. Ms. Nelson
responded that ALSC had 35 attorneys.
Senator Micciche voiced that sometimes the state was sued
by ALSC on behalf of clients. He asked how often the
corporation sued the state and to discuss under what
circumstances ALSC was prohibited from practicing. Ms.
Nelson answered that "on occasion" the ALSC took cases
where the state was the opposing party. She reported that
the number of affirmative lawsuits against the state was
less than 10 out of the 3.3 thousand cases each year. Most
often the corporation was helping individuals in the
"defensive position." She added that the corporation was
prohibited via federal regulation from providing services
for controversial matters like abortion related services or
gerrymandering cases etc. In addition. the ALSC was
prohibited from competing with the private bar and did not
take on fee generating services such as personal injury
cases. She offered to provide a complete list of
restrictions.
2:54:01 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop appreciated Ms. Nelson's testimony and
was supportive of the service the ALSC provided.
Senator Micciche noted that the list of restrictions was
included in the member's bill packets [titled " Alaska
Legal Services Corporation Restrictions on Cases] (copy on
file).
2:54:34 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
EMILIE BEASLEY, SELF, MATSU (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She reported that she was 73 years of
age, lived in the state since 1977, and served in the
Marine Corps. She explained that ALSC helped her remain
safe in her home from a family member who threatened her
life. She appreciated the respectful attitude of ALSC staff
and the representation in court. She urged support of the
bill to help protect senior citizens.
2:55:32 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop thanked Ms. Beasley for her service to
the country.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
2:56:00 PM
AT EASE
2:56:33 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated that a new fiscal note was
requested from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
She announced that amendments were due the following day by
5pm and that amendments for HB 219 were due the following
day by noon.
HB 106 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:57:59 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB106 Additional Document-HFIN Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Additional Document-SJUD Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sponsor Statement 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sectional Analysis ver D 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sponsor Statement 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |