03/30/2016 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB8 | |
| Overview: U.s. Supreme Court Decision Sturgeon Vs. Frost | |
| SB165 | |
| SB103 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2016
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to the regulation and production of industrial
hemp."
- MOVED CSSB 8(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION STURGEON V. FROST
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to the presence of minors in the licensed
premises of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
alcoholic beverages; relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; relating to the offense of minor consuming; relating to
revocation of a driver's license for a minor consuming offense;
relating to the effect of the revocation of a driver's license
for a minor consuming offense on a motor vehicle liability
insurance policy; and amending Rule 17, Alaska Rules of Minor
Offense Procedure."
- MOVED CSSB 165(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to school boards; relating to approval of
educational programs at residential psychiatric treatment
centers; providing for funding of educational services for
students in residential psychiatric treatment centers; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSSB 103(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTION LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) ELLIS
01/21/15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (S) RES, JUD, FIN
03/20/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/20/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/20/15 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/27/15 (S) Moved SB 8 Out of Committee
03/27/15 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/15 (S) RES RPT 1DP 4NR
03/30/15 (S) DP: WIELECHOWSKI
BILL: SB 165
SHORT TITLE: ALCO. BEV. CONT. BOARD; MINORS; ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/01/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/16 (S) L&C, JUD
02/11/16 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/11/16 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/23/16 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/23/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/23/16 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/08/16 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/16 (S) Moved CSSB 165(L&C) Out of Committee
03/08/16 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/09/16 (S) L&C RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/09/16 (S) DP: COSTELLO, GIESSEL, MEYER, STEVENS,
ELLIS
03/23/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/23/16 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/16 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/15 (S) NR: GIESSEL, COSTELLO, COGHILL,
MICCICHE
04/10/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/10/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/23/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/23/16 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/16 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 103
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
04/10/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/15 (S) EDC, JUD
02/17/16 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/17/16 (S) EDC, JUD
02/25/16 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/16 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/01/16 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/16 (S) Moved SSSB 103 Out of Committee
03/01/16 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/02/16 (S) EDC RPT 3DP 1NR
03/02/16 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, GIESSEL, HUGGINS
03/02/16 (S) NR: GARDNER
03/07/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/07/16 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of Sturgeon v. Frost
from the state perspective.
MATTHEW T. FINDLEY, Attorney
Ashburn & Mason P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Sturgeon v. Frost as counsel of
record.
CHUCK KOPP Staff
Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation of Amendment 1 for
SB 165.
KIRSTEN MYLES, Director
Cook Inlet CHARR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
DALE FOX, President and CEO
Alaska CHARR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director
Mat-Su Health Foundation
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 165.
KATIE KRAMARSYCK
Juneau Youth Services (JYS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 165.
JACK MANNING, President
Juneau CHARR and owner of the
Duck Creek Market
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
PAUL THOMAS, Treasurer
Juneau Lynn Canal CHARR and owner of the
Alaska Cache Liquor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
LEEANN THOMAS, owner
Triangle Club Bar and member of
CHARR
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 165.
ELLEN GANLEY, Vice Chair
ABC Board
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 165.
CHYSTAL SCHOENROCK, owner
Forelands Bar and member of
CHARR
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
LARRY HACKENMILLER, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 165.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 103.
EVELYN ALSUP, Educational Director
North Star Behavioral Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting testimony for SB 103.
MICK GRAHAM, Chief Academic Officer
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 103.
ED GRAFF, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 103.
KARI NORE, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 103 on
behalf of the sponsor.
CAELA NIELSEN, Parent
North Star student
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 103.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:13 PM
CHAIR LESIL MCGUIRE called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Costello, and Chair McGuire. She
reviewed the agenda.
SB 8-INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTION LICENSES
1:32:44 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 8.
1:32:47 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSB 8, labeled 29-LS0195\W,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
1:33:06 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that without objection, CSSB 8(JUD) is
reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
^Overview: U.S. Supreme Court Decision Sturgeon vs. Frost
Overview: U.S. Supreme Court Decision Sturgeon vs. Frost
1:33:36 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the next item on the agenda would be an
overview of Sturgeon v. Frost by Attorney General Craig Richards
and counsel of record, Matthew Findley. She relayed the
committee's interest in: understanding the implications of the
case; the state's past and future interest; and the remand
points.
1:34:32 PM
CRAIG RICHARDS, Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
explained that the procedural history of the case came from John
Sturgeon riding his hovercraft on the Nation River, which is
part of the Yukon-Charlie Rivers National Preserve and a
conservation system unit regulated by the National Park Service.
Alaska law permits the use of hovercraft, whereas the National
Park Service forbids their use in areas it regulates and has
jurisdiction. [In 2007] Mr. Sturgeon was stopped by Park Service
officials and told he couldn't operate his hovercraft on the
Nation River. He protested saying he viewed it as state-owned
land not subject to Park Service regulation. Mr. Sturgeon did
remove his hovercraft and subsequently filed suit in federal
district court challenging what the National Park Service can
regulate under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA).
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS explained that ANILCA provides that
the Park Service can regulate public lands, but Section 6 of the
Statehood Compact and the Equal Footing Doctrine of the U.S.
Constitution show the State of Alaska received title to its
navigable waters at statehood. That includes the Nation River.
Mr. Sturgeon argued that the Nation River is not a public land
under ANILCA due to the fact that the state received title to
the riverbed at statehood.
The U.S. District Court for Alaska rejected Mr. Sturgeon's
argument and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
decision. Under that reading, the prohibition against the Park
Service regulating nonpublic lands only applied to Alaska's
specific regulations, and did not apply to the larger national
set of regulations that apply to all parks. The federal
government also argued that even though Alaska received title to
the riverbeds, the Park Service reserved sufficient interest in
them that they were still considered public lands for purposes
of ANILCA.
The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the logic of the lower
courts in a unanimous 8:0 vote. While this was a great win, the
U.S. Supreme Court did not reach the core of the parties'
arguments. Specifically, it did not decide whether the Nation
River qualifies as public land under ANILCA. It also did not
decide whether the Park Service has authority to regulate
activities on the Nation River, even if it is not public land.
The case is remanded to the Ninth Circuit to address those
questions.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS complimented Mr. Findley who argued
the case for Mr. Sturgeon and Department of Law (DOL) employees
Ruth Botstein and Janell Hafner who argued the case for the
state. He noted that Ms. Hafner paid her own way due to travel
restrictions. He expressed hope that everyone reads the
transcript because it has some very good language. In
particular, Chief Justice Roberts took the opportunity to lay
out some history and make the case that Alaska is unique. It is
the exception and not the rule in terms of land management on
federal lands. He opined that this will be a case that is cited
in many Department of Law briefs going forward because it sets
the stage for the unique treatment of Alaska under ANILCA, the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and other Alaska-
specific federal laws.
He concluded his comments saying everyone owes Mr. Sturgeon a
debt of gratitude for taking on what is essentially public
interest litigation.
1:39:31 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if Mr. Sturgeon would qualify for Public
Interest Litigant Doctrine (PILD) reimbursement.
1:39:56 PM
MATTHEW T. FINDLEY, Attorney, Ashburn & Mason P.C., said his
most recent read of the law is that Mr. Sturgeon would not
qualify for PILD reimbursement. Responding to a further
question, he clarified that the issue is in federal court and
under federal law.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if the state intends to be a financial
participant during remand.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS said, to the extent Mr. Sturgeon
wants, the Department of Law will provide the level of support
it did at the U.S. Supreme Court level. In the best situation
the state would intervene and take an active part in the case,
but there is some question as to whether the state can get
standing due to the Ninth Circuit's fairly narrow reading of
what standing is for the state.
1:42:13 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked when a decision can be expected on the
remand.
MR. FINDLEY said the Supreme Court has about 20 more days before
the decision becomes final and the case goes back to the Ninth
Circuit panel. It's hard to tell how long that court will take
to issue an order saying what happens next.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked Attorney General Richards to explain the
significance of the Sturgeon case.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS said the case has the potential to be
extremely significant. ANILCA is the law that effectively
resolved aboriginal land claims in Alaska and created a unique
federal management structure for federal lands. The particular
question in the case is the extent to which the federal
government has the power to regulate Alaska lands that fall in
conservation units and National Parks. That includes almost all
the navigable waters, private inholdings in federal land, and
the substantial Native corporation holdings within the different
federal management areas. He reiterated that Chief Justice
Roberts was very helpful in giving guidance to the federal
courts to view Alaska as different.
1:46:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked how this ruling might affect the facts
underpinning the Katie John case.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS replied this was a much narrower
question about Park Service regulations; it wasn't the intention
of any of the parties to relitigate the subsistence question in
Katie John.
CHAIR MCGUIRE clarified she was asking about the underlying
question of whether the state has the authority to regulate its
own navigable waters.
MR. FINDLEY confirmed that the state and Mr. Sturgeon took the
position that a 100 percent favorable ruling would not disturb
the holding of Katie John. They took the same position before
the Supreme Court and it never came up in oral argument. They
will take the same position going back to the lower courts. The
court can rule for Mr. Sturgeon and the state affirming that
these navigable waters aren't public lands and therefore not
subject to ANILCA regulations. That can be done wholly
independent of what the Ninth Circuit said in Katie John. The
cases are very distinguishable.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Findley to discuss the case.
1:48:38 PM
MR. FINDLEY explained that he's been Mr. Sturgeon's counsel
since 2011 and had the distinct honor and privilege of arguing
the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in January. He said this
case has always been about more than Mr. Sturgeon and his
hovercraft. It's about getting the Park Service and federal
government to abide by the agreements made when ANILCA passed in
1979. At the time, both the state and Native corporations
registered concern about putting over 100 million acres of land
in Alaska into conservation system units and removing any
potential for development. The reasons were that the state
relied on some of these lands for economic development, and a
significant portion of the lands Native corporations selected
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act were about to be
surrounded by these new conservation system units. One of the
critical issues before Congress was the notion that any land
within these parks that isn't owned by the federal government,
shouldn't be affected. Lands that are not subject to federal
park regulation before ANILCA, are not subject to federal park
regulation after ANILCA. That was the idea behind Section 103(c)
of ANILCA, and the centerpiece of the Sturgeon case. The first
sentence of 103(c) clearly says that any land not owned by the
federal government is not part of these parks. The second
sentence says these nonfederal lands can't be regulated as
though they were part of the parks. The third sentence says if
the federal government wants to regulate the nonfederal lands as
part of the park, they need to buy them to do so.
The Park Service in Alaska didn't try to test the boundaries of
Section 103(c) until 1996 when they issued a regulation saying
they could regulate navigable waters without regard to who
actually owns the rivers. The state's and Mr. Sturgeon's
position was that under the Statehood Act, the Submerged Lands
Act, and the Equal Footing Doctrine, the state owns the
submerged lands and the waters going through. They are not part
of the parks and shouldn't be regulated as though they were.
By the time the matter got to the district court and the Ninth
Circuit level, the Park Service was going further and arguing it
could apply any of its nationwide management regulations to any
nonfederal land at their discretion. The district court and
Ninth Circuit Court accepted that interpretation, but the U.S.
Supreme Court emphatically rejected the Park Service's position
in an 8:0 decision. He stressed the importance and rarity of
such a ruling and said it's a very real win for Mr. Sturgeon and
the entire state.
MR. FINDLEY said it wasn't a surprise that the Supreme Court
didn't take up every issue in the case and no reason to be
disheartened by a remand on the technical questions about
reserve water rights and who has jurisdiction over the rivers.
The lower courts didn't take up these questions so it would be
rare for the court of last review to take them up on the first
instance.
One of the things the Supreme Court did do in ruling unanimously
is to send clear guidance to the lower courts in this case and
to courts every time they pick up an Alaska land use case. That
is that Alaska is unique and should be viewed as the exception
not the rule.
MR. FINDLEY said this case reaches far beyond this particular
case and the decision will live on for a very, very long time.
There aren't many Alaska-specific U.S. Supreme Court decisions
and none of them go into as much detail regarding Alaska land
use and Alaska land policy. That being said, there are very
important things at stake going forward. The Park Service hasn't
entirely abandoned its position that it can still promulgate
regulations to regulate uplands. It has also continued to take
the position that it has inherent authority over all state-owned
navigable waters and can regulate them whether they are part of
the park or not. These are issues of critical importance to the
state that will be litigated on remand.
MR. FINDLEY emphasized that the state has been a very good
partner to Mr. Sturgeon, particularly at the Supreme Court
level. He thanked Attorney General Richards and the Department
of Law for their support and described the amicus brief that
Janell Hafner and Ruth Botstein wrote as wonderful and said the
argument Ms. Botstein delivered made both presentations better.
He concluded saying "This is the finest legal team I can
imagine. If we had to do it again, I'd want the same people at
my side."
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she looks forward to this committee following
the case as it goes back to the Ninth Circuit. Continuing to
update the legislature bolsters more awareness of the rights
Alaskans have and may help Mr. Sturgeon with financial support
going forward. She said it's remarkable that one individual
would go this far to benefit so many Alaskans into the future.
She thanked Attorney General Richards and Mr. Findley.
SB 165-ALCO. BEV. CONT. BOARD; MINORS; ALCOHOL
1:56:42 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 165. She noted
this is the second hearing and the committee substitute, version
W, is before the committee.
1:57:03 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved Amendment 1, labeled 29-LS1384\W.1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 165(L&C)
Page 5, line 1, following "completion of":
Insert "(1)"
Page 5, line 2:
Following the first occurrence of "program":
Delete ","
Insert "or"
Following the second occurrence of "program":
Delete ", or a community diversion panel"
Page 5, line 4, following "AS 47.37":
Insert "; or
(2) a community diversion panel"
Page 5, line 18:
Following "completion of":
Insert "(1)"
Following "program":
Delete ","
Insert "or"
Page 5, line 19, following "program":
Delete ", or a community diversion panel"
Page 5, line 20, following "AS 47.37":
Insert "; or
(2) a community diversion panel"
Page 6, line 14:
Delete "selected by the court to serve"
Insert "serving"
CHAIR MCGUIRE objected for an explanation.
1:57:21 PM
CHUCK KOPP Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 for SB 165 distinguishes
between the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) and the
Juvenile Safety Action Program (JSAP) that are approved by the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and community
diversion panels that are used by tribal circles and youth
courts. These are the treatment options a person has for getting
a fine reduced from $500 to $50.
2:01:49 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE removed her objection and Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR MCGUIRE opened public testimony.
2:02:34 PM
KIRSTEN MYLES, Director, Cook Inlet CHARR, testified in
opposition to SB 165. She expressed concern that SB 165 will do
away with the balanced decision-making of the current Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) Board and turn it into a group with an
anti-alcohol agenda. As currently written, the potential is
great that three of the five board members will have backgrounds
from rural, public safety, and health and social services, all
of which are traditionally anti-alcohol. A board with this
perspective could differ greatly from the interpretation of
business that recognizes the economic and social benefits of the
hospitality industry. She urged the committee to hold SB 165.
2:04:00 PM
DALE FOX, President and CEO, Alaska CHARR, testified in
opposition to SB 165. He stated that the board and government
affairs committee voted unanimously to oppose SB 165. He said he
attended the meetings in good faith for three years and
consensus was not reached in the committee process. Claims to
the contrary are simply not true. Research on other boards in
Alaska shows they are made up of a majority of industry members
with a few public members. As currently drafted, the composition
of the ABC Board will be anti-alcohol, which will not lend
itself to a reasonably regulated industry. He reiterated that
Alaska CHARR does not support SB 165 and doesn't believe the
industry supports it.
2:06:39 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director, Mat-Su Health Foundation,
testified in support of SB 165. She reported that that Mat-Su
Health Foundation conducted a community health needs assessment
in 2013 and alcohol and substance abuse was ranked as the number
one health issue. When asked, the local police captains
reinforced that alcohol was the number one problem. She related
that the foundation is a funding partner of Recover Alaska,
which aims to reduce the harm done by alcohol throughout the
state by employing environmental strategies. This includes
uniform enforcement which SB 165 provides for minor consuming.
They also support the change in composition of the ABC Board.
She pointed out that alcohol isn't an ordinary commodity; it
brings in revenue but it has enormous costs associated with its
use. She highlighted that Alaska is the only state that has
given the alcohol industry such a prominent voice on its
regulatory board, and insisted that the board instead needs to
more fairly represent the interests of all Alaskans. This can be
accomplished by designating seats for public safety and public
health and ensuring that they clearly outnumber industry seats.
She urged the committee to pass SB 165.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for an example of the laws that she hopes to
change as a result of the change in composition of the board.
MS. RIPLEY clarified that the foundation is not advocating for
policies that eliminate the sale of alcohol but would advocate
for higher alcohol taxes and policies that restrict the density
of alcohol outlets, create an environment where youth are
prevented from having access to alcohol and where they see
social norms that do not promote heavy use and abuse of alcohol.
2:10:33 PM
KATIE KRAMARSYCK, Juneau Youth Services (JYS), testified in
support of SB 165. She informed the committee that JYS provides
outpatient substance abuse treatment to youth. She said JYS
supports the new composition of the ABC Board. The hope is that
it will provide a more balanced representation from community
members and be more consistent with the new Marijuana Control
Board. JYS also supports the change in the minor consuming law
from a class A misdemeanor to a violation with a $500 fine. The
existing minor consuming laws are enforced inconsistently and
have led to few referrals for treatment. The hope is that
changing to a $500 citation will lead to better enforcement and
more referrals for treatment. JYS also supports reducing the
fine to $50 upon proof of participation in ASAP, JSAP or
community treatment programs because it provides excellent
incentive for youth to go to treatment.
2:13:22 PM
JACK MANNING, President, Juneau CHARR and owner of the Duck
Creek Market, testified in opposition to SB 165. He stated that
CHARR doesn't object to the youth portion of SB 165, but he
doesn't understand the urgency of pulling the composition of the
ABC Board out of the original SB 99. He questioned whether the
board would function properly and result in litigation because
the people wouldn't have business backgrounds. The 1,800 liquor
license holders in the state ought to be made aware of these
changes and be factored into the formula of the makeup of the
board, he said.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she, too, was concerned about the board
composition and didn't necessarily support it, but it's part of
a package that has good provisions for young people. She asked
if he anticipates similar problems as those that occurred when
the Murkowski Administration put the board under the Department
of Public Safety. It became an agenda-driven mission to perform
stings and she and Senator Meyer felt compelled to sponsor
legislation to move the agency back to DCCED.
MR. MANNING said DPS at the time focused its enforcement efforts
entirely on alcohol licenses and doing stings. Nothing was spent
on any other prevention methods despite the fact that the most
common way for youth to access alcohol is at home. He related
that during that time he could go to court and get $1,000 from a
minor who came into his store and tried to buy alcohol. He
always thought it would be better to give the youth a choice of
going to court or going to a school assembly to talk about minor
consuming from their personal perspective.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said her concern about changing the makeup of the
board is that rural, health, or public safety representatives
may come in with an agenda.
2:23:28 PM
PAUL THOMAS, Treasurer, Juneau Lynn Canal CHARR and owner of the
Alaska Cache Liquor, testified in opposition to SB 165. He said
he was a member of two of the ABC committees that have been
working on Title 4 since 2012, and he believes the bill is a
step backwards and will have the effect of damaging the
cooperative environment that the industry and board have been
building. The diverse group working under the ABC steering
committee did talk about the composition of the board, but this
concept was not considered and would not have been supported.
The current composition works well and should not be changed. He
urged the committee to hold the bill and instead pass the
complete package that reflects the cooperative work from
stakeholders and the board.
2:26:12 PM
LEEANN THOMAS, CHARR member and owner of the Triangle Club Bar,
testified in opposition to SB 165. She said that for two years
she actively participated in the Title 4 rewrite and is totally
against pulling elements from that comprehensive legislation and
placing it in a separate bill. She emphasized the advantage of
bringing Title 4 forward in one piece to ensure that it works
together. She pointed out that it doesn't work now because of
the piecemeal approach. In particular, she objected to the
composition of the board. She said two industry seats is
insufficient, and that number could potentially drop to one. She
maintained that the non-industry members would not be
knowledgeable enough to make decisions about licenses.
2:30:40 PM
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, expressed dismay at some of the testimony he'd heard
today on SB 165. He directed attention to the letter in the
packets from the co-chair of the Title 4 revision committee that
clearly sets out that the composition of the board was discussed
and consensus was gained on adding public health and public
safety seats to the board. To claim otherwise is simply not
true, he said. He also stated that the argument that
professional licensing boards are primarily made up of members
of that profession is irrelevant because the ABC Board is
regulatory and not a professional licensing board. Just as it
wouldn't be appropriate to weight the Oil and Gas Commission
with members from the oil and gas industry, it isn't appropriate
for a majority of the ABC Board to be actively engaged in the
industry that is being regulated. He agreed with previous
testimony that the current composition of the board that
includes two members from the alcohol industry is unprecedented
nationwide. He said he'd be happy to discuss, in public meetings
or with members separately, the kinds of problems that have
occurred because of the industry domination of this board.
CHAIR MCGUIRE requested he give examples for the record.
MR. JESSEE said one example is that the ABC Board devised a
scheme that allowed a Fairbanks bar to continue to operate after
it failed to renew its liquor license. The ABC Board issued a
second bar week-long catering permits that allowed it to cater
the operations of the first bar whose license had lapsed. This
went on week after week. Manipulation of a recreational site
license provides a second example. That statute clearly states
that those licenses are for seasonal events that allow the sale
of beer and wine an hour before and an hour after the event. It
is used for events like baseball and hockey games. A billiards
parlor applied for and received a recreational site license, and
the justification was that people play pool. Other billiards
parlors then applied for licenses so they wouldn't be at a
competitive disadvantage. At some point, the Alaska Club
received a recreational site license that allowed the sale of
beer and wine during operating hours seven days a week. There
was no event, no season, and had nothing to do with a
recreational site as envisioned by the legislature. The board
expanded this license type so far that even CHARR eventually
objected saying it had the potential to diminish their licenses.
MR. JESSEE said the forgoing examples are exactly why public
health and public safety should be represented on the ABC Board.
That voice needs to be heard consistently so other agencies
don't need to constantly birddog the board's activity and
interpretation of the statutes. The legislature recognized the
importance of public health and safety when it formed the
marijuana board and it's just as appropriate for this board, he
said.
2:37:29 PM
ELLEN GANLEY, Vice Chair, ABC Board, related that she serves as
a public member of the board and has a public health background.
She fully supports the changes to the composition of the board,
and believes that it gives an opportunity to bring in voices
that represent other constituencies. She also stated support for
the changes to the minor consuming statutes, because issuing
tickets as opposed to misdemeanors will help identify the scope
of the problem in the state.
2:39:22 PM
CHYSTAL SCHOENROCK, Business owner, Forelands Bar, and CHARR
member, testified in opposition to SB 165. She questioned
whether the bill wasn't a backdoor approach to return oversight
of the ABC Board to the Department of Public Safety. She
stressed that there is no reason to change a fair system that
has worked for many years.
2:40:29 PM
LARRY HACKENMILLER, representing himself, testified in
opposition to SB 165. He said the concerns Mr. Jessee expressed
have been addressed in three years of regulation writing. He
continued to say that contrary it the sponsor's remarks and Mr.
Klein's representation, the Alaska CHARR government affairs
committee did not arrive at a consensus to change the makeup of
the ABC Board. He said the existing composition of the board
works and does allow for someone from the fields of public
health and public safety to be appointed. This mandated change
isn't warranted and the accompanying education component isn't
called for in the statute. He also questioned the purpose of
putting law enforcement on the board, because public safety
concerns are not impaired by having two public members on the
board. The changes to the minor consuming laws does cut some red
tape but would be more appropriate in the comprehensive SB 91.
Finally, he described the ABC Board as a licensing board that is
appropriately housed under DCCED.
2:43:30 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony on SB 165.
2:43:48 PM
At ease
2:48:02 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and offered Conceptual
Amendment 2 to SB 165.
CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
TO SB 165
AS 12.62.400(a) is amended by inserting a new
paragraph (18) that reads:
(18) a registration or license to operate a
marijuana establishment 31 under AS 17.38.
AS 17.38.200(a) is amended to read:
(a) Each application or renewal application for a
registration to operate a marijuana establishment
shall be submitted to the board. A renewal application
may be submitted up to 90 days before [PRIOR TO} THE
EXPIRATION OF THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT'S
REGISTRATION. When filing an application under this
subsection, the applicant shall submit the applicant's
fingerprints and the fees required by the Department
of Public Safety under AS 12.62.160 for criminal
justice information and a national criminal history
record check. The board shall forward the fingerprints
and fees to the Department of Public Safety to obtain
a report of criminal justice information under AS
12.62 and a national criminal history record check
under AS 12.62.400.
SENATOR COGHILL objected for an explanation.
CHAIR MCGUIRE explained that the bill that gave the Marijuana
Control Board the authority to issue licenses, included a
requirement that all applicants submit to a criminal background
check. This was to ensure that licenses are not issued to
felons. In an oversight, the bill didn't give the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) the
specific statutory authority to request a national criminal
history record check. She said she is offering the amendment
conceptually so the drafter can comport it to SB 165.
2:49:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL removed his objection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI highlighted a clerical error in the new
paragraph (18).
2:49:55 PM
At ease
2:50:48 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and asked Senator
Wielechowski to offer an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to strike the number "31" in the new
paragraph 18. [It appears between the words "establishment" and
"under".]
CHAIR MCGUIRE found no objection and announced that Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended, is adopted.
2:51:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE spoke of the testimony he heard today and
clarified that he does not support moving the ABC Board back to
the Department of Public Safety and he does have documents that
clearly show what CHARR agreed to. He said his perspective is
that after a great number of steering committee meetings that
included the industry, they had a bill that was ready and at the
last moment CHARR indicated it wasn't ready. Because of that he
introduced SB 165 that includes two things that everybody had
agreed on. He read excerpts from steering committee minutes on
10/5/15 regarding composition of the board and a letter from the
CHARR government affairs committee dated 1/22/16. In that
letter, CHARR said:
Alternatively, the industry committee suggests that
the composition of the ABC Board and the minor
consuming sections could remain intact if we added a
section to reduce the class A misdemeanors for
licensees in Title 4 to violations with language
approved by both the steering committee and the CHARR
government affairs committee.
SENATOR MICCICHE emphasized that the Title 4 rewrite effort will
continue and the remainder of the original bill will deliver the
results that CHARR wants. But the provisions in SB 165 were
agreed upon and it's appropriate to make those changes now, this
legislative session. He reiterated support for the alcohol
industry as an important part of Alaska's economy and again
emphasized that the bill does not have a hidden agenda and the
industry should not be blamed for the social ills associated
with over-consumption of alcohol. The bill is an effort to help
the industry partner with communities to attain a healthier
Alaska.
CHAIR MCGUIRE offered her understanding that work would continue
on the larger rewrite of Title 4.
2:57:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he supports a lot of things in the
bill, but it's moving a little fast. The bill was heard
previously in Senate Labor and Commerce but there is only one
day of published minutes available. On Monday the bill received
a quick introduction and 23 people were signed up to testify.
Today the hearing has lasted just 45 minutes to an hour. He
noted there is no other committee of referral and he'd feel more
comfortable if there was more time to study it before reporting
it out.
SENATOR COSTELLO, speaking as Chair of the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee, clarified that every bill that is referred
to that committee receives at least two hearings and all the
public comment.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said her inclination is to move the bill today,
but she would take additional amendments.
2:59:18 PM
At ease
3:00:10 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and solicited a motion.
3:00:18 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report the CS for SB 165, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Coghill, Costello,
Micciche, and McGuire voted in favor of the motion to move SB
165 from committee and Senator Wielechowski voted against it.
Therefore, by a vote of 4:1 CSSB 165(JUD) was reported from the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:01:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated his intention to remain engaged and
ensure that members who are appointed to the board do not have a
record of opposing the industry.
SB 103-RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC EDUCATION FUNDING
3:02:07 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SSSB 103. She noted
this is the first hearing and version I is before the committee.
3:02:24 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, labeled 29-LS0733\I.2.
AMENDMENT
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SSSB 103
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to school districts;"
Page 2, line 9, following "treatment;":
Insert "and"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Page 2, lines 13 - 15:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 20, following "(a)":
Insert "A school district may enter into a
contract to provide payments to a residential
psychiatric treatment center that provides an
educational program for a student admitted to the
center. If a school district and a residential
psychiatric treatment center are unable to agree on a
proposed contract on or before January 1 immediately
preceding the first school year for which the
residential psychiatric treatment center is seeking
funding, the school board where a student who is
admitted to the center is enrolled shall enter into a
contract with the center as provided in (b) of this
section.
(b)"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "(b)"
Insert "(c)"
Page 3, line 6:
Delete "(b)(21)"
Insert "(c)(21)"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 4, line 24:
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 4, line 30:
Delete "(a)"
Insert "(b)"
Page 5, line 15:
Delete "AS 14.30.800"
Insert "AS 14.30.800(f) - (g)"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "AS 14.30.800(b)"
Insert "AS 14.30.800(c)"
3:02:46 PM
At ease
3:03:29 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and objected for the
purpose of an explanation of Amendment 1 for SB 103.
SENATOR COGHILL said the amendment adds "relating to school
districts" to the title, deletes the uniform requirements
provision on page 2, paragraph (7); and inserts language that a
school district may enter into a contract that provides payments
to a psychiatric treatment center. If a school district chooses
not to enter into a contract, the school board where the child
is admitted may enter into a contract with the treatment center.
He explained that the amendment is based on an existing contract
in his district. Recognizing there are differing opinions as to
how this should be handled in other districts, there is an
avenue of appeal. He stated he disagrees with the legal
memorandum that indicates that the state interest may not be
provided.
3:05:57 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB
103, said she has no objection to Amendment 1.
SENATOR COSTELLO questioned what the added language on page 2,
line 20, actually achieves.
SENATOR COGHILL replied it provides an appeal option. The school
boards set the standards and will enter into the contract if the
school district and treatment facility fail to agree.
3:08:09 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said she'd like to hear from the drafter
because it appears that the requirements the bill sets out do
not apply if you go through the school board, but they do apply
if you go through the school district.
SENATOR COGHILL said his expectation is that a school district
would enter into a contract based on whatever the school board
had established as standards for that community. If there's a
direct appeal to the school board, he imagines the same standard
of education would be applied.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the contract would be with the
district where the student comes from.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes.
SENATOR COSTELLO listed the number of students who would be
affected from the different school districts and asked if the
intention is to have a separate contract for each district.
SENATOR COGHILL said that's his understanding.
3:10:16 PM
EVELYN ALSUP, Educational Director, North Star Behavioral
Health, clarified that the contracts would only be with the
district where the facility is located, not each individual
district. Amendment 1 allows the Fairbanks North Star Borough
and a local treatment facility to continue to contract as they
have for 20 years, with the standard set forth by the local
school board.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed with the explanation.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked to hear what the Anchorage School
District thinks about the amendment.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Superintendent Graff to comment on Amendment
1.
3:11:54 PM
MICK GRAHAM, Chief Academic Officer, Anchorage School District
said Superintendent Graff isn't available at the moment and they
hadn't seen the amendment. He pointed out that there is a unique
difference between the ways that the Anchorage School District
and the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District work with
North Star Behavioral Health. Fairbanks has only long-term care
and the Anchorage facility has both long-term care and shorter
term, acute care.
SENATOR COSTELLO said his response isn't addressed to the
amendment and perhaps the sponsor of the amendment could provide
an explanation.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the amendment is meant to help an
appeal process in the Anchorage district and to accommodate the
existing contracts in the Fairbanks district. He opined that the
operative part for Anchorage is the appeal option if the school
district and the treatment center don't agree on a contract. In
that circumstance, the school board enters into a contract with
the treatment center as provided in subsection (b), which lays
out the qualifications of the treatment center.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she was just apprised that Superintendent
Graff has seen the text of Amendment 1 when it was added to the
House version of the bill.
SENATOR COSTELLO summarized that the amendment would allow the
school district to enter into a contract but if it isn't signed
before January 1 preceding the first school year, the school
board may enter into a contract. She asked if the school board
would approve a contract that the school district entered into.
MR. GRAHAM said Superintendent Graff had returned.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Superintendent Graff if he'd heard the
explanation and Senator Costello's question.
ED GRAFF, Superintendent, Anchorage School District, Anchorage,
Alaska, said the amendment is inappropriate because it provides
the school board the statutory right to appeal the school
district's decisions to the commissioner and the Board of
Education. His research indicates that no other private vender
is afforded this type of appeal in Alaska's public education
system. He relayed that on March 18 he submitted a letter to the
House Education Committee outlining the concerns with the
amendment.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she understands the opposition and there is a
letter in the packet clarifying the Anchorage School District's
opposition.
3:18:23 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Senator Costello if she maintains her
objection.
SENATOR COSTELLO said yes.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Micciche, Coghill, and
McGuire voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 1 to SB
103 and Senators Wielechowski and Costello voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a 3:2 vote.
3:19:16 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 2, labeled 29-LS0733\I.3.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SSSB 103
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "2019"
Insert "2020"
CHAIR MCGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the amendment extends the time the
bill will remain in effect.
3:19:36 PM
KARI NORE, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, said that's correct. It conforms to Amendment 1 and
ensures a full three-year pilot project.
3:19:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected, based on his objection to
Amendment 1.
CHAIR MCGUIRE removed her objection and asked for a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Micciche, Coghill, Costello
and McGuire voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2 to
SB 103 and Senator Wielechowski voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a 4:1 vote.
3:20:49 PM
At ease
3:21:00 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and opened public
testimony.
3:21:21 PM
CAELA NIELSEN, Parent, North Star student, testified in support
of SB 103. She described her background as an educator and her
son's disorders and the services provided for him by the
Anchorage School District. She recalled his suspension when he
was 13 and the process they followed in his individual education
plan (IEP) in the regular school district. He was in various
treatment programs, including North Star and Palmer, which put
him behind in school. He ended up in a manic state and tried to
overdose. She recalled his history in and out of treatment
centers. She listed what she needed for her son and what she
hoped to receive for him at treatment centers. She strongly
encouraged support for the educational project found in SB 103.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Ms. Nielsen to submit her comments in
writing.
3:28:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SSSB 103, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
3:28:50 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Graff if he supports the bill.
MR. GRAFF stated that the Anchorage School District does not
support SB 103.
3:29:30 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that without objection, CSSSSB 103(JUD)
is reported from Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:29:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair McGuire adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 165 Support Klien Jessee.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Opposition Shapiro.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Fiscal Note Courts.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 103 MSBSD Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 Opposition ASD 3.9.16.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 103 |
| SB 8- CS Version W.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB 103 Letter of Support Northstar.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 103 |
| SB 165 Opposition Stewart.msg |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Opposition Matthews.msg |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 103 Opposition Gov. Council on Disabilities.pdf |
SJUD 3/30/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 103 |