Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/2024 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB28 | |
| SB181 | |
| SB228 | |
| SB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2024
9:07 a.m.
9:07:32 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Olson called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Sponsor; Claire Lubke, Staff, Senator
Matt Claman; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Sponsor; Laura Achee,
Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman; Konrad Jackson, Staff,
Senator Jesse Bjorkman; Kris Curtis, Auditor, Legislative
Audit.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brenda Stanfill, Executive Director, Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Jared Kosin,
President and CEO, Alaska Hospital and Healthcare
Association; James Stinson, Director, Division of Public
Advocacy, Department of Administration; Terrence Haas,
Southcentral Foundation, Anchorage; Charles Zeanah,
Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Tulane University
School of Medicine, Louisiana; Bobbi Outten, Southcentral
Foundation, Anchorage; Kendall Seal, Vice President of
Policy, Center for the Rights of Abused Children, Arizona;
Kim Guay, Director, Director, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Family and Community Services.
SUMMARY
SB 28 WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 181 CHILD PLACEMENT; DILIGENT SEARCH
SB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 228 EXTEND BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
SB 228 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 234 EXTEND MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
SB 234 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to workplace violence protective
orders; relating to the crime of violating a
protective order; relating to the powers of district
judges and magistrates; amending Rules 4 and 65,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska
Rules of Administration; and providing for an
effective date."
9:08:37 AM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation.
He spoke to the Sponsor Statement (copy on file):
When individuals make credible threats of violence
against an employer's worksite or an employee, the
attorney representing the employer may need to file a
civil lawsuit and ask for a temporary restraining
order to protect the business. It can take several
days to complete and obtain the order. In contrast,
people seeking a domestic violence restraining order
can usually get the court order within one day.
Senate Bill 28, modeled after Alaska's domestic
violence protective order process, allows an employer
to file a petition for a protective order against an
individual who the employer reasonably believes
committed an act of violence against the employer or
an employee, or made a threat of violence against the
employer or an employee that can reasonably be
construed as a threat that may be carried out at the
employer's workplace.
Senate Bill 28 will provide employers with a more
effective way to protect their workplace and their
employees from violence carried out by individuals who
pose a known threat. A 2019 report from the US Bureau
of Justice found that 13 percent of all nonfatal
workplace violence was carried out by someone well-
known to the victim. This rate was up to 20 percent of
nonfatal workplace violence incidents that involved a
female victim. Additionally, the victim and offender
had a current or prior professional relationship in 25
percent of all nonfatal workplace violence incidents.
Eleven states have laws providing for the issuance of
protective or restraining orders that are specific to
workplace violence. Utah is the most recent addition
to this list, which passed a workplace violence
protective order law in 2023.
9:11:11 AM
Senator Wilson queried the process to be granted a
protective order.
Senator Claman replied that currently, anyone could file a
civil lawsuit against another person, and then seek a
temporary restraining order. He remarked that there was a
much longer process to receive a restraining order in
business than there would be for a domestic violence
protective order.
Senator Wilson felt that the bill would not create a new
class of petitioners, rather it would create a new class of
protective orders.
Senator Claman responded that there would be a new class of
petitioners, but the bill allows for employers to file a
workforce violence protective order.
Senator Bishop wondered how many of these types of cases
occurred annually in Alaska.
Senator Claman replied that the total number of cases in
Alaska involving domestic violence protective orders in
2023 was approximately 3800. He furthered that, with
regards to the legislation, there was an anticipation that
it would not lead to hundreds of new cases. He felt that
there would be around 50 to 100 cases.
Co-Chair Olson remarked that there would be protective
orders, and not cases.
Senator Claman agreed.
Senator Bishop surmised that it was a benchmark of around
fifty.
Senator Claman agreed.
9:15:39 AM
Senator Kiehl remarked that the orders could extend beyond
the boundaries of the workplace itself, and asked for that
reasoning.
Senator Claman replied that sometimes violent relationships
appeared at work, and not only at home. He stressed that
the interest was to provide those protections.
Senator Kiehl felt that it was an important strength of the
legislation. He wondered whether the language allowed for
the employee who was protected sought a modification of the
order.
Senator Claman replied that he would need to talk to
Legislative Legal, but stressed that there was an intent to
strengthen the standing of the employer.
9:18:56 AM
CLAIRE LUBKE, STAFF, SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, wondered whether
the committee would like a Sectional Analysis.
Co-Chair Olson replied that the committee would wait until
after invited testimony.
9:19:10 AM
BRENDA STANFILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT (via teleconference),
(ANDVSA) spoke in support of the bill.
Co-Chair Olson wondered whether Ms. Stanfill referred to
the village of Emmonak.
Ms. Stanfill replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Olson wanted to ensure that the bill extended to
the rural communities in the state.
9:23:08 AM
JARED KOSIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA HOSPITAL AND
HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation.
Senator Wilson wondered how the bill would work for a
person, when the employer was a hospital, and the person
needed to have emergency services at that facility with the
legislation.
Mr. Kosin replied that the hospital dealt with people who
were sometimes part of the corrections system. He remarked
that there were protocols when dealing with identity. He
would consider the question further. He was confident that
there were tools already in place.
Senator Wilson remarked that there was an issue about right
of refusal.
Mr. Kosin agreed, and deferred to Senator Claman.
Senator Claman agreed with Mr. Kosin.
Senator Wilson was worried that the person might be in
violation of the protective order.
Senator Claman agreed to follow-up on that issue.
9:28:34 AM
Senator Bishop felt that there were some protective
individuals that could go with the patient to receive care.
Senator Claman felt that there could be challenging
situations who did not have regular medical providers and
received care from a known person aside from an emergency
provider.
9:31:01 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared
that she was available for questions about protective
orders.
Senator Wilson wondered how many protective orders were
violated resulting in a trial.
Ms. Meade replied that there were three types of protective
orders: domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
She shared that there were about 150 charges filed for
violating domestic violence protective orders that were
exclusive of other criminal charges.
Senator Wilson wondered how many were filed in that same
period of the 150 cases.
Ms. Meade replied that the sponsor's office had the exact
percentage.
Ms. Lubke replied that it was less than 4 percent.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered how protective orders would be
enforced in communities with and without a Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO).
Ms. Meade replied that when a court issued a protective
order, the court gave it to law enforcement.
9:35:37 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the key point was about
protecting an individual from a violent person in the
community. He stressed that there were over 100 communities
that had a VPSO or no law enforcement. He wondered whether,
aside from removing the threatening individual, the
department had any recommendations about how the situations
could be better addressed through law.
Ms. Meade responded that the court was responsive to a
petition.
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the jurisdiction of the
court system was not a concern for the threatened
individual.
Ms. Meade replied that the court system was equipped to
help people who are in danger.
Co-Chair Hoffman stressed that the committee could give the
court authority, and hoped to find out the language
required for the authority.
9:40:17 AM
Senator Bishop queried the way to execute the court order
without law enforcement.
Ms. Meade responded that once a protective order was
issued, the statute must provide them to the Department of
Public Safety (DPS).
Ms. Lubke provided a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
AS 11.56.740. Violating a protective order.
Amends AS 11.56.740(a) by adding a new subsection (4)
to specify that a person commits the crime of
violating a protective order if the person knowingly
commits or attempts to commit an act that violates the
provisions listed under the workplace violence
protective order statutes.
Section 2
AS 11.56.740. Violating a protective order.
Amends AS 11.56.740(c) by adding the workplace
violence protective order statutes to the meaning of
"protective order."
Section 3
AS 18.65.530. Mandatory arrest for crimes involving
domestic violence, violation of protective orders, and
violation of conditions of release.
Amends AS 18.65.530(a) by clarifying that the
mandatory arrest statute for crimes involving domestic
violence, violation of protective orders, and
violation of conditions of release is subject to the
requirements of section 1 of this bill.
Section 4
AS 18.65.540. Central registry of protective orders.
Amends AS 18.65.540(a) to add the workplace violence
protective order statutes to the central registry of
protective orders maintained by the Department of
Public Safety.
Section 5
AS 18.65.540. Central registry of protective orders.
Amends AS 18.65.540(b) to add the workplace violence
protective order statutes to the list of protective
orders a peace officer enters into the central
registry within 24 hours of receiving.
Section 6
Amends AS 18.65 to add new section: "Article 12A.
Workplace Violence Protective Orders." Sec. 18.65.875.
Protective orders; eligible petitioners; relief.
Section (a) gives employers the ability to file a
petition for a protective order against an
individual who the employer reasonably believes:
(1) committed an act of violence against the
employer; (2) committed an act of violence
against an employee at the employer's workplace;
(3) made a threat of violence against the
employer; or (4) made a threat of violence
against an employee that can reasonably be
construed as a threat that may be carried
out at the employer's workplace.
Section (b) specifies that the court shall
schedule a hearing and provide at least 10 days'
notice to the respondent.
Section (c) details prohibited behavior of the
respondent after the protective order is issued.
Section (d) describes the court's
responsibilities related to issuing a protective
order.
Section (e) clarifies a court may not deny a
petition for a protective order solely because of
a lapse of time between an act of violence or a
threat of violence and the filing of the
petition.
Sec. 18.65.877. Ex parte protective orders for
workplace violence. Gives employers the ability
to file a petition for an ex parte protective
ordera temporary order that would grant
immediate protection.
Sec. 18.65.880. Modification of workplace
violence protective order. Creates a process for
either the petitioner or the respondent to
request modification of a protective order.
Sec. 18.65.885. Specific protective orders.
Specifies that an invitation by the petitioner or
a named designated employee of the petitioner to
have the prohibited contact or to be present at
or enter the workplace, residence, vehicle, or
other place does not in any way invalidate or
nullify the protective order.
Sec. 18.65.890. Forms for petitions and orders;
fees. Clarifies that the court system will
prepare forms for petitions, protective orders,
and instructions for their use by an employer
seeking a protective order.
Sec. 18.65.895. Service of process. Clarifies
that protective orders should be promptly served
and executed.
Sec. 18.65.897. Civil liability Creates civil
liability provisions.
Sec. 18.65.899. Definitions Makes the definitions
of "course of conduct," "employee," "employer,"
"threat of violence," "violence," and "workplace"
apply to the workplace violence protective
statutes.
Section 7
AS 22.15.100. Functions and powers of district
judge and magistrate.
Amends AS 22.15.100(9) by adding a new section
(C) to give district judges and magistrates the
power to issue a protective order in cases
involving workplace violence.
Section 8
Uncodified law Indirect court rule amendments
Specifies amendments to: Rule 4, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration, relating to fees and service of
process for a workplace violence protective
order; and Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, by changing the method for obtaining
and the timing of temporary restraining orders.
Distributed by the Office of Senator Matt Claman
2.21.2023
Section 9
Uncodified law - applicability
Makes section 8 conditional on approval by the
two-thirds majority vote of each house required
by art. IV, sec. 15, Constitution of the State of
Alaska.
Section 10
Effective Date
If section 9 takes effect, it takes effect on
January 1, 2025.
Senator Wilson wondered how much workload was required for
three additional positions.
9:44:51 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), (DOA)
responded that the work was in investigative services, and
remarked that there was no way to understand how many cases
were to require investigation.
Senator Wilson felt that every new criminal law bill
resulted in new positions. He wondered why the positions
were not requested within the budget.
Mr. Stinson replied that he understood the concern, but
felt that there were unexpected acknowledgements in
legislation. He stressed that if there was an increase in
workload, it must be included in the fiscal note.
Senator Bishop queried the benchmark caseload for a public
defender.
Ms. Stinson responded that it was a difficult question to
answer, because some were dedicated and some were mixed
caseloads.
9:50:13 AM
Senator Claman noted that he did not agree with the fiscal
notes.
9:51:02 AM
TERRENCE HAAS, SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that he was available for
questions.
9:51:16 AM
AT EASE
9:52:37 AM
RECONVENED
SB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to placement of a child in need of
aid; relating to adoption; and providing for an
effective date."
9:53:12 AM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill would change
current requirements.
Senator Bjorkman replied that the diligent family search
requirements would improve searches for all children. He
noted that the applicable pieces in the legislation that
did not affect children, would be any changes to the
placement provisions.
Senator Kiehl queried which changes would be more or less
that the current actions of the department.
9:59:48 AM
LAURA ACHEE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, replied that
she was familiar with the broad statutory direction, which
stated that the department should conduct family searches.
She was not familiar with the internal policies or
procedures.
Senator Kiehl surmised that it would also include an
outside chick on the department's efficacy.
Ms. Achee replied that the department must report every
time there was a hearing on their progress.
Co-Chair Olson queried how one year was determined in the
legislation.
Ms. Achee responded that the impetus was broad by
constituents who had worked with experts.
Co-Chair Olson recalled that there was a reference of
"under the age of six" and asked about that number
determination.
Senator Bjorkman responded that there was similar research
about the impact of adverse childhood experiences was
exceeding negative under the age of six.
Co-Chair Olson wondered whether the "placement" allowed for
foster parents to adopt the children.
Senator Bjorkman replied that placement can be either
temporary or permanent.
Senator Kiehl wondered whether there was a risk to set up a
three tier structure for different children.
Senator Bjorkman responded that the department and judge
would need to consider all factors when determining care
for the child. He stressed that there was not a policy that
would work for every situation.
10:06:22 AM
Senator Kiehl remarked that there were not child welfare
experts present, and felt that the children were best off
when kept with families. He asked about the strength of the
research.
Co-Chair Olson agreed with that concern.
Senator Bjorkman responded that, generally, there were some
testifiers that could speak to the research and data
available. He agreed that there should be a goal to keep
families together.
Ms. Achee furthered that the bill only dealt with people
who were not the parents.
Senator Kiehl remarked that foster parents played a very
crucial role, and asked about the power of the foster
parents. He wondered if they were set up with an impossible
task.
Senator Bjorkman responded that the change clarified
current practice.
10:11:35 AM
CHARLES ZEANAH, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY AND PEDIATRICS,
TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, LOUISIANA (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill, and shared
his research and experience.
10:16:04 AM
Co-Chair Olson wondered how there was justification when a
parent was in a dire situation, but receiving treatment for
their crisis.
Ms. Zeanah replied that the issue was about the movement
from one foster placement to another.
Senator Kiehl surmised that the bill was about moving out
of foster care, and asked about the applicability of Mr.
Zeanah's research and how it related to the move out of
foster care.
Mr. Zeanah responded that "relatives" were also referred to
foster care.
Senator Kiehl wondered whether the research showed that
there was no protective affect with placement with family
as compared to placement with unrelated fosters.
Mr. Zeanah replied that his research did not deal with that
question directly. He remarked that it was important to
acknowledge that there needed to be an intensive full
service research of relatives for the placement of the
child.
Senator Kiehl wanted clarity on the research.
Ms. Achee agreed with Mr. Zeanah.
10:21:02 AM
BOBBI OUTTEN, SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation.
10:27:57 AM
KENDALL SEAL, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, CENTER FOR THE
RIGHTS OF ABUSED CHILDREN, ARIZONA (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill.
10:34:38 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, thanked
the sponsor, and felt that the version adequately addressed
earlier concerns.
Co-Chair Olson recalled that he had a foster child with his
family, and wondered whether the policy change was
necessary.
Ms. Meade replied that it was up to the legislature to make
that determination.
Co-Chair Olson felt that there were many issues resulting
from foster care issues.
Ms. Meade responded that children who were a child in need
of aid, suffered greatly.
10:38:31 AM
KIM GUAY, DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (via
teleconference), spoke to the fiscal notes.
Senator Kiehl wondered which elements of the family search
were new or current practices.
Ms. Guay responded that there were policies in place to do
an adequate family search within the first thirty days. She
stated that there was another family search if adoption was
occurring.
10:41:01 AM
Senator Kiehl wanted to know which items were new, and
requested a written response from the department.
Ms. Guay agreed to provide that information.
Co-Chair Olson wondered whether the department was in favor
of the legislation.
Ms. Guay replied that the department appreciated the
efforts, but had concerns with the bill. She stated that
some problems would be exasperated with the passage of the
bill.
10:44:09 AM
Co-Chair Olson wondered why there was not correction on the
existing issues.
Ms. Guay responded that the issues were very nuanced,
because of several factors involved in those decisions.
Co-Chair Olson asked for a comment on the $850,000 fiscal
note.
Ms. Guay responded that there would be an increased cost to
litigation.
Senator Merrick appreciated the bill, and stated that she
was adopted at birth and felt that it was unthinkable to be
taken away from family to be placed with a biological
relative.
SB 181 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 228
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Massage Therapists; and providing for an effective
date."
10:48:22 AM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation.
10:50:26 AM
KONRAD JACKSON, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, stated that
he was available for support.
10:51:02 AM
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, spoke to the
audit.
Co-Chair Olson wondered whether a six-year extension was
still recommended with the deficiencies.
Ms. Curtis replied that her recommendation for extension
was very fluid, and considered all aspects of the audit.
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
SB 228 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 234
"An Act relating to the Marijuana Control Board; and
providing for an effective date."
10:55:41 AM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation.
Senator Kiehl wondered whether the audit vote requirements
were considered in the bill.
Senator Bjorkman replied that he considered that provision,
and understood the recommendation. He felt that it should
be a policy call in other legislation.
10:58:47 AM
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, shared findings
within the audit of the board.
SB 234 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
11:08:10 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m.