04/25/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB196 | |
| HB246 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2022
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to transparency and compelled speech in public
education."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 246(FIN)
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; relating to misconduct involving marijuana by
persons 18, 19, or 20 years of age; amending Rule 17(h), Alaska
Rules of Minor Offense Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 196
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ED: SPEECH, DISCLOSE INST MATERIAL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
02/15/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/22 (S) EDC, JUD
03/25/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/25/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/25/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/04/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/13/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/20/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/22 (S) Moved CSSB 196(EDC) Out of Committee
04/20/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/22/22 (S) EDC RPT CS 1DP 1NR 2AM SAME TITLE
04/22/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND
04/22/22 (S) NR: STEVENS
04/22/22 (S) AM: HUGHES, MICCICHE
04/25/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 246
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) JUD, FIN
01/19/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/19/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/19/22 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/28/22 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/28/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/22 (H) Moved CSHB 246(JUD) Out of Committee
01/31/22 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/04/22 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 2NR
02/04/22 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
02/04/22 (H) NR: EASTMAN, VANCE
03/03/22 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
03/03/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/11/22 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
03/11/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/22 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/22 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
03/28/22 (H) Moved CSHB 246(FIN) Out of Committee
03/28/22 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/22 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NEW TITLE 3DP 4NR
04/04/22 (H) DP: ORTIZ, EDGMON, WOOL
04/04/22 (H) NR: LEBON, THOMPSON, JOSEPHSON, MERRICK
04/13/22 (H) FIN CS ADOPTED Y25 N6 E7 A2
04/15/22 (H) TECHNICAL SESSION 4/15 - ON 4/19
CALENDAR
04/19/22 (H) NOT TAKEN UP 4/19 - ON 4/20 CALENDAR
04/20/22 (H) BEFORE HOUSE IN THIRD READING
04/20/22 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/20/22 (H) VERSION: CSHB 246(FIN)
04/25/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 196.
DAVID BOYLE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
196.
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 196 on behalf of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 246.
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 246 on behalf of
the sponsor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 246.
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
246.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:04 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Hughes, Shower, Kiehl and Chair
Holland.
SB 196-PUBLIC ED: SPEECH, DISCLOSE INST MATERIAL
1:33:47 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to transparency and compelled speech in public
education."
[CSSB 196(EDC) was before the committee.]
1:34:19 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 196, introduced the legislation by paraphrasing
the following sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
1:34:43 PM
SB 196 is an act related to transparency and compelled
speech in public education. Several sections of the
bill refer to Title 14 Chapter 18, specifically
relating to prohibition against discrimination based
on sex or race in public education. The bill adds a
new section including transparency of curriculum and
Prohibiting Compelled speech, and enforcement.
Transparency: A public school including charter
schools shall display on school's website, regularly
updated, all training material used for teachers,
instructional or curricular material, school
procedures, title and author of materials, and any
organizations associated with the material, a brief
description and link to the material and identity of a
teacher if they produced the material.
1:35:40 PM
Prohibit Compelled Speech: The classroom may not be a
venue for political activism, lobbying efforts. A
student or teacher, administrator, or other employee
must not be compelled to adhere to the belief or
concept that the United States, the state, or
individual is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or
sexist, that an individual by virtue of sex, race
ethnicity religion or color or national origin, an
individual's moral character is necessarily determined
by their sex, race, ethnicity, religion color or
national origin.
Enforcement: The Attorney General may commence civil
action in the superior court to enjoin a state agency,
school district's governing body, charter school, or
public school from violating transparency or compelled
speech.
1:36:12 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated the intent of SB 196 is to prevent
discriminatory teaching practices. She stated that Florida
Governor DeSantis noted in a recent speech that Florida does not
want to use tax dollars to teach people to hate the United
States or each other. She related some recent news articles,
including one about a school district that offered staff
leadership programs but excluded one race from participating.
The transparency provision in SB 196 ensures that parents have
access to the materials that teachers are using in the
classroom.
1:37:52 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased the sectional analysis for SB 196:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section One: AS 14.18.070 is amended to replace the
words "this chapter" with the sections 14.18.010-
14.18.110 related to affirmative action.
Section Two: AS 14.18.080 Implementation adopted by
the board of regents.
1:38:23 PM
Section Three: AS 14.18.090 (a) The board shall
enforce compliance by school districts and regional
educational attendance areas. The board shall
institute appropriate proceedings to abate the
practices found by the board found to be in violation
of AS 14.18.010-14.18.110.
1:38:33 PM
Section Four: Remedies: A person aggrieved by a
violation of AS 14.18.010-14.18.110 or of a regulation
or procedure adopted under the chapter may file the
complaint with the board and has independent right of
action in superior court for civil damages and for
such equitable relief as the court may determine.
Section Five: Effect is supplementary to and does not
supersede existing laws relating to unlawful
discrimination based on race or sex.
Section Six: Adds a new section to include
transparency, prohibiting compelled speech and
enforcement.
Section 14.18.150 Transparency: Curriculum and
instructional materials used for teacher and other
staff training on nondiscrimination, diversity,
equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, bias, or
another concept that includes one or more of those
concepts will be displayed on the school's website and
updated regularly. Instructional material on the
website will include the title and author of the
material as well as any organization or website
associated with the material.
Section 14.18.160 Prohibiting Compelled Speech: A
state agency, school districts' governing body,
charter school, or public school may not allow a
teacher, administrator, or other employee to include
in a course or award course grading or extra credit
for political activism, lobbying or effort to persuade
members of the executive or legislative branch at
local, state, or federal level to take specific
action, or any practicum or similar activity involving
social or public policy advocacy. An individual by
virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin is inherently superior or inferior.
Students, teachers, administrators, and other
employees have the opportunity to opt out of any
speech, training or session.
1:40:04 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased a portion of Sec. 14.18.160 of the
bill, which read:
(2) may not direct or otherwise compel a student or a
teacher, administrator, or other employee to affirm,
adopt, or adhere to the belief or concept that
(A) the United States or the state is fundamentally or
irredeemably racist or sexist.
(B) an individual by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity,
religion, color, or national origin, is, consciously
or unconsciously, inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive;
1:40:38 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to Sec. 14.18.170 on page 5, lines 25-
31, for the enforcement provision.
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to Sec. 14.18.190 on page 6 as the
definition section.
1:40:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND turned to invited testimony.
1:41:15 PM
DAVID BOYLE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, paraphrased
written remarks, which read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Chair Holland, committee members, I am David Boyle
testifying for myself and thousands of parents and
students. Thank you for this opportunity to comment in
support of SB196. I believe this is perhaps one of
the most important bills in this legislative session
because it will determine the futures of our children
and our State.
I have provided testimony before to the Senate
Education Committee on the various parts of this bill.
Today, I will provide testimony regarding the note
from Legislative Legal which is in the documents in
Basis for this bill.
1:41:56 PM
MR. BOYLE continued to paraphrase his written testimony, which
read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The first issue LegLegal deals with is TEACHER SPEECH
IN K12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
At issue is the "compelled speech" portion of the
bill.
Leg Legal states that this raises a First Amendment
concern because the bill "prohibits a public school
from teaching certain concepts." HOWEVER, leg legal
then says that in Garcetti v. Ceballos the SCOTUS
established a rule that "this First Amendment
protection does not apply if an employee is speaking
in the performance of their duties. Teachers ARE
speaking as government employees so they do NOT have
First Amendment protection in the classroom.
When public employees make statements pursuant to
their official duties they are not speaking as private
st
citizens for 1 Amendment purposes and they can be
disciplined.
I disagree with the statement by Leg Legal that
"However, the Court left open the question of whether
this holding applied to speech related to scholarship
or teaching". The Court clearly stated that public
st
employees, ie teachers, do NOT have protected 1
Amendment rights when they are in the teaching
environment.
1:43:17 PM
st
Leg Legal clouds the issue on 1 Amendment rights when
th
it discusses the Demers v. Austin case heard in the 9
Circuit Court. This Court applies a 5 step process to
st
determine whether and employee's 1 Amendment rights
were violated. (1). Whether the person spoke on a
matter of public concern; (2) Whether the person spoke
as a private citizen or public employee. It is clear
that teachers are public employees when in the
classroom. So, Leg Legal concludes that "a professor's
teaching and academic writing MAY BE PROTECTED under
st
the 1 Amendment. Note that their conclusion only
refers to "professors", not K12 teachers. This Ninth
Circuit Court decision ONLY applied to universities
and professors, not K12 teachers.
1:44:05 PM
MR. BOYLE continued to paraphrase his written testimony, which
read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Then Leg Legal goes on to say that "It is possible the
th
the 9 Circuit Court would find that the teaching and
academic writing of a k12 public school teacher is
st
protected under the 1 Amendment if it meets the test
established in Pickering V. Board of Education. BUT
Pickering ONLY addressed a professor's academic
speech, not a K12 teacher. Leg Legal's comment is
thus merely conjecture. The Pickering case involved a
teacher who wrote a letter to the editor. He was
acting in a personal capacity, not an official
capacity as a classroom teacher. So the Pickering case
is also nonapplicable here.
Finally, Leg Legal concludes that "It is therefore
also likely that SB196's speech prohibitions as
applied to a K12 public school teacher WOULD SURVIVE a
st
1 Amendment challenge. I rest my case on the First
Amendment challenge.
Now let's take a look at the second part of Leg
Legal's discussion. This has to do with a Student's
First Amendment Rights. The SCOTUS decided in its Bd
of ED vs Pico that the school board did NOT have the
right to remove books from the school library. Thus,
it said that the right to read and receive ideas is
also Free Speech. The issue here is NOT the removal of
curriculum material. The real issue in this part of
the bill is that the school/teacher CANNOT "require a
student to participate in student activism, lobbying
or efforts to persuade the executive or legislative
branch at any govt level" and be REWARDED with a
course grade, extra credit or credit. This is what
occurred when former Governor Bill Walker presented
his lesson plan to Anchorage students on his budget.
He wanted the students to do a survey of friends,
parents and neighbors by push polling his budget.
Then these students were to provide the survey results
on the former governor's blog. This is what this part
of SB196 would prevent.
1:46:23 PM
MR. BOYLE continued to paraphrase his written testimony, which
read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The final part of Leg Legal's note referred to
Vagueness.
I believe that SB196 lays out those subjects that are
referred to Leg Legal's discussion of vagueness.
Sec.14.18.160.2.A-F clearly lists those areas that are
prohibited as compelled speech. They include: The US
is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
See A-F (Page 4)
Finally, remember that the First Amendment and all of
the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution were written
to PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THE GOVERNMENT, NOT GIVE
POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Thank you for the time and please pass this very
important bill to the Rules Committee. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
1:47:34 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if he could provide his background since it
would help members to better understand his point of view.
1:48:06 PM
MR. BOYLE answered that he served as a communications officer in
the US Air Force for 20 years. He said he was a founder of the
Alaska Policy Forum (APF) in 2009. He served as the executive
director for five of the eight years he volunteered for APF.
1:48:34 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether school districts have the authority
to do what the bill requires or if the bill would compel them to
do so.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that her understanding was that
districts must teach non-discriminatory materials. She stated
that she was uncertain about school districts' authority but
offered to provide examples of what had been happening in the
classroom.
1:49:51 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether a school district could decide to
do everything the bill directs it to do without the state
mandating the requirements.
1:50:05 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes; school districts could do so. She
explained that school districts used Zoom and posted their
curriculum online during COVID-19 and that transparency informed
parents about what was being taught in the classroom.
1:50:26 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked for a list of other states with similar
legislation. He further asked whether the sponsor was aware of
any current or past court cases that might provide guidance on
how the courts have viewed similar legislation.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that three states had enacted similar
laws, including Florida. She offered to report to the committee
on the court cases.
SENATOR SHOWER expressed curiosity about the court cases.
1:51:42 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the enforcement provision on page 5,
lines 25-27 of the bill that would allow the attorney general to
bring a civil action in superior court to enjoin a state agency.
He wondered whether this was something the attorney general
normally does and if it was in their purview to file civil suits
against a school district or municipal body or if this was a new
provision.
SENATOR REINBOLD deferred to Legislative Legal Services. She
said she wanted to ensure that the attorney general had the
enforcement authority to hold school districts violating the
policies accountable.
1:53:11 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked why the attorney general was selected
instead of leaving it up to parent groups or other groups within
the community who might be more familiar with what is happening
in the school.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the attorney general was someone
all Alaskans could turn to, plus the office has ample resources
available to pursue legal actions. She indicated that she wanted
a governmental entity to act as an advocate rather than
depending on parents whose students were negatively affected.
1:54:13 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said it seemed as though the attorney general
would want to file a lawsuit. However, if the attorney general
decided not to file, nothing in the bill would prevent parents
or community members from filing a lawsuit.
SENATOR REINBOLD agreed.
1:55:14 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the bill provides the authority for
the attorney general to file lawsuits because the cost of
litigation for a private citizen is so high.
SENATOR REINBOLD reiterated that she wanted to ensure that
people had a governmental agency or person to turn to who had
the authority to investigate matters.
1:56:28 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 5, line 28, and noted that the
only ones who can request an advisory opinion from the attorney
general would be a state agency, school districts, governing
body, charter school, or public school. She wondered if
concerned parents could request an advisory opinion indicating
whether a proposed act or omission violates AS 14.18.150 or
14.18.160 if the state agencies do not request one.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that it might be a good amendment.
CHAIR HOLLAND suggested the committee ask Legislative Legal
Services to address the points that have been raised.
1:57:35 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, advised that the attorney general and
Legislative Legal Services both were unavailable today due to
the budget proceedings. He referred to the enforcement mechanism
provided in current law, AS 14.18.090. It provides for an appeal
to the Board of Education to enforce the regulations and the
chapter. He referred to AS 14.18.100, which provides remedies if
a person is aggrieved. He paraphrased subsection (a), which
read, in part:
(a) A person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter
or of a regulation or procedure adopted under this
chapter as to primary or secondary education may file
a complaint with the board....
MR. KING explained that this language provides the authority for
parents to go directly to the Board of Education and file a
complaint. He informed members that moving these duties to the
attorney general would be a departure from current law. He
advised that using the Board of Education to enforce education
statutes would provide consistency. He suggested that could be
accomplished by removing one of the earlier sections.
1:59:01 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to page 4, lines 23-27, to the language
in subparagraph (3)(A), which read:
(3) may not use public funds to contract with, hire,
or otherwise engage a speaker, consultant, diversity
trainer, or other person to
(A) encourage, direct, or otherwise compel a
student or a teacher, administrator, or other
employee to affirm, adopt, or adhere to a
specific belief or concept.
1:59:26 PM
SENATOR MYERS directed attention to page 5, lines 15-18,
allowing voluntary participation. He stated that it is
prohibited on the one hand, but on the other hand, it says it is
allowable. In response to Senator Reinbold, he referred to the
language on page 4, lines 23-27, and page 5, lines 15-18.
1:59:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that page 4 uses the language "may
not direct or compel," which relates to using public funds to
contract, hire, or otherwise engage a speaker, consultant,
diversity trainer, or other person to adopt a specific belief or
concept. However, the language on page 5, subsection (4), and
subsection (a) would allow students, teachers, administrators,
and employees to voluntarily participate in training, seminars,
continuing education, orientations, or therapy that promotes a
concept, but they cannot be forced to do so.
SENATOR REINBOLD added that subsection (b) does not prohibit
speech protected by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or
the Constitution of the United States.
SENATOR MYERS stated that his concern was the language on page
4, line 25, which begins with "encourage." However, a speaker
would be encouraging something. He suggested that the committee
consider removing "encourage" for clarity. If the point is to
have a seminar after school or on Saturday morning, but the
speaker cannot encourage anything, the language on page 5,
paragraph (2) would not apply.
2:02:23 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND remarked that he benefitted from hearing this bill
in the Senate Education Committee. He referred to the language
in subparagraph (A) on page 4, line 25, which read:
(A) encourage, direct, or otherwise compel a student
or a teacher, administrator, or other employee to
affirm, adopt, or adhere to a specific belief or
concept.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that this language says that it is
allowable to encourage students to reach out to a political
organization or entity and espouse their beliefs. Still, it
prohibits encouraging them to take a specific side on a belief.
2:03:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD acknowledged his point. She emphasized that the
significant language in subparagraph (A) is that someone cannot
compel a student, teacher, administrator, or employee to
affirm, adopt, or adhere to a specific belief or concept.
However, it applies to a very specific and narrow set of beliefs
outlined in paragraph (2).
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 5, which she said is different
because it allows voluntary participation. She stated that the
prior committee changed it from an absolute prohibition by
adding in allowable actions. She recalled that Senator Hughes
amended the bill in the Senate Education Committee.
2:04:11 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that page 4 refers to the requirements and
page 5 refers to optional participation. She offered her view
that the word encourage was added on page 4 because once a
school staff encourages something, they imply that it is a good
thing, which could influence someone. She pointed out that the
language on page 5 does not encourage optional participation.
Instead, the language allows informing students of speakers or
seminars as optional choices, but it does not allow teachers or
school staff to influence them to attend. She offered her view
that encourage does not mean force, but it does express an
opinion. She acknowledged that an adult could influence
students.
2:06:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged that adults have the ability to
influence students. He stated that the US Supreme Court was
considering whether teachers can lead prayer for the reasons
Senator Hughes mentioned. He said that the use of the word
encourages also struck him. He offered his belief that it was
impossible to understand 20th Century history without reading
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who developed Marxism. However,
that doesn't mean that reading it meant believing a word of it.
SENATOR KIEHL wondered about some language in the bill,
including the language in subsection (2) on page 4, line 5,
affirm, adopt, or adhere to the belief or concept that"
followed by a list of things that were suspect under the bill.
Subparagraph (B) lists sex, race, ethnicity, and religion, but
it does not mention class. He asked whether class was excluded
so that schools were free to teach communism.
2:08:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to paragraph (3), which read, "may not
use public funds to contract with, hire, or otherwise engage a
speaker, consultant, diversity trainer, or other person to ...."
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that it would be hiring someone to
encourage students and school personnel. She offered her view
that the language was acceptable as written, given the context
used. She said she is uncertain what Senator Kiehl meant by
class.
2:08:52 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND offered his view that Senator Kiehl was speaking
to the list [in subparagraph (B)] that included sex, race,
ethnicity, religion, and omitted economic class or social class.
He had asked whether she excluded class to allow teachers to
teach communism.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed that economic or social class was omitted
from the list.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that this bill does not address
communism. She offered her view that because communism is a form
of government, teachers could teach about capitalism and
communism. She highlighted that [AS 14.18.160 subparagraph (1)]
indicates that a teacher cannot compel a student, teacher,
administrator, or other employee to affirm, adopt, or adhere to
the belief or concept that
[A] the United States or the state is fundamentally or
irredeemably racist or sexist;
(B) an individual by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity,
religion, color or national origin is, consciously or
unconsciously, inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive;
(C) an individual, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity,
religion, color, or national origin, is blameworthy
for actions committed in the past by other members of
the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin;
(D) an individual's moral character is necessarily
determined, in whole or in part, by the individual's
sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national
origin;
(E) a sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin is inherently superior or inferior; or
(F) an individual should be adversely treated based on
sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national
origin;
2:10:47 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that this is a nondiscrimination
bill, so someone could not force a person to believe a concept,
including that someone was inherently one way based on the color
of their skin.
2:11:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to subparagraph (2)(A):
(A) the United States or the state is fundamentally
or irredeemably racist or sexist;
SENATOR KIEHL said he was unsure what fundamentally means in
this context. The US Constitution, America's fundamental law,
had in its origin, protections for chattel slavery or black
slavery. He asked whether teaching that fact of history would
violate this law.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that schools could teach about the US
Civil War and things that were excluded or included in the US
Constitution. SB 196 prohibits directing or compelling a
student, administrator, teacher, or other employee to affirm,
adopt, or adhere to a belief or concept that the US, in general,
is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist. Thus,
teaching about the holocaust or the Civil War would be fine.
2:13:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related that the practical application question
was whether a school may teach that the fundamental original law
of the US had racist pieces in it. He wondered if asking that
question on a test would be compelling the student and, if not,
what fundamental meant.
2:13:39 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opined that Senator Kiehl was confusing the idea
that the United States is fundamentally racist versus the notion
that some of the fundamental origins of the United States were
racist.
2:14:30 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out that many countries had slavery and
racism, which still exists in some places today. This bill
states that schools can't teach people to hate the United States
or one another strictly based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion,
color, or national origin. For example, schools can talk about
the people who hated slavery so much in this country that they
were willing to die to prevent it. She emphasized that
discrimination was creeping into the school curriculum and
activities. She stated that the intent of SB 196 was to prevent
horrific and hateful concepts from taking root in Alaska's
schools.
2:17:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES highlighted that the Education Committee wanted
to be sure that discussions could occur on historical events.
She stated that Legislative Legal Services indicated that
nothing in the bill would prevent teaching about the Holocaust,
the Civil War, or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the schools, so
teaching civics would not be prohibited.
2:19:38 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated support for SB 196. She encouraged people
to read the flyer posted to BASIS for an anti-racist workshop
offered by the University of Alaska Anchorage that was marketed
to school district educators. The workshop was entitled, The
Anti-Racist Writing Workshop; How to decolonize the creative
classroom. She viewed this as an indicator that critical race
theory was creeping into the K-12 system.
SENATOR HUGHES expressed concern about parental rights and
having students exposed at the high school level. She said she
also read an article on the math curriculum in Florida. She
noted that many elements would not be allowed under this bill
since they were attempting to influence children on some
matters. She offered her belief that the transparency provision
in the bill was excellent. She urged members to consider what
type of curriculum schools should be teaching.
2:20:39 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that fundamentally parents have the right
to teach their children, and teachers do not have the right to
teach concepts that parents disagree with, depending on the
topic and court rulings. He referred to subparagraph (A) on page
4, line 7. He offered his view that fundamentally means
foundation. He stated that although many founding fathers owned
slaves, they did not like it and foresaw that it would change.
He noted the three-fifths compromise [art. II, sec. I was an
agreement reached during the 1787 US Constitutional Convention
over counting enslaved people in determining a state's total
population. It counted any enslaved person as three-fifths of an
individual.] Today racism is illegal, but legislation doesn't
change someone's heart.
SENATOR SHOWER referred to line 8 to the term irredeemably,
which he viewed as the most important word in the bill. He
offered his belief that the United States is not irredeemably
racist or bad. Instead, the United States represents a self-
correcting experiment that should get better over time. He
agreed that teachers should not teach that the United States or
the state is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.
2:24:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed that the United States is not irredeemably
racist. The bill uses the language fundamentally or
irredeemably. He stated that the definition of fundamentally
includes "an essential part of" and "a foundation or basis." He
agreed with Chair Holland's description. He stated that the
University of Alaska offered the course Senator Hughes
mentioned. It is not a course taught to school district
students. The flyer does not indicate that it is required
attendance for teachers, counselors, or district contractors. He
asked how the bill would cancel the workshop.
2:25:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that the University of Alaska's space was
used for the class. It turns out the Municipality of Anchorage
funding was from a prior administration. She stated that her
point was that this provided an example that this thinking is
infiltrating the schools. For instance, in July 2021, NEA
discussed the topic, encouraging teachers to incorporate these
teachings in the K-12 classroom.
2:26:43 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND said the flyer targets K-12 teachers. He expressed
concern that the flyer illustrated that it instructs teachers to
teach a certain way. This bill does not address that, but it
tries to ensure that teachers teach students fairly and
impartially.
2:27:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that he shares Senator Shower's concern
that the university was offering training designed to ensure
that teachers are not using racist methods or racism in the
classroom.
CHAIR HOLLAND offered his view that the bill was not
specifically targeting UAA training.
2:28:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD suggested potential amendments, including one
from Florida that would set curriculum standards that ensure
curriculum and teacher professional development align with
required instruction and state standards, including no critical
race theory or common core standards. She offered her view that
common core allowed this type of crud to creep in. She referred
to an article from the Alaska Watchman, which read, in part:
The Anchorage School District is offering a staff
leadership program this summer that excludes white
people from participating.
Open to teachers, counselors, or nurses, the Minority
Leadership Program aims to "empower staff of Color to
ascend through the ranks of leadership within the
Anchorage School District."
In order to participate in the program, employees must
be "staff of color," the notice states. It fails to
clarify, however, exactly what this encompasses or how
the district will determine whether an applicant is a
person of sufficient color.
SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that this bill would unify and
uphold the US Constitution, aligning with current AS 14 and 18.
She stated her preference for CSSB 196(EDC), Version D of the
bill.
2:30:02 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 196 in committee.
2:30:12 PM
At ease
HB 246-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
[Contains discussion of SB 207.]
2:30:55 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 246(FIN) "An Act
restricting the release of certain records of convictions;
relating to misconduct involving marijuana by persons 18, 19, or
20 years of age; amending Rule 17(h), Alaska Rules of Minor
Offense Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
2:31:29 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that HB 246 was the companion bill to SB
207, which the committee heard on 4/6/2022 and 4/11/2022.
2:31:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 246, introduced
himself.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked the sponsor to highlight the differences
between SB 207 and HB 246.
2:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained the main difference
between the two bills was an amendment the House Finance
Committee added that related to underage possession of marijuana
for persons 18, 19, or 20 years of age. He noted that the legal
age for possession of marijuana is 21 years of age. Currently,
those persons 18, 19, or 20 years of age possessing marijuana
are subject to class A misdemeanor charges, punishable by up to
90 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. The amendment the
House Finance Committee adopted, changed underage possession of
marijuana for persons 18, 19, or 20 years of age to a violation,
effectively mirroring the charges for a minor charged with
possessing alcohol. He noted that SB 207 also contained
legislative intent, which was not in the House version. He
expressed his willingness to accept the language in either bill.
2:33:46 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to subsection (b) on page 3, lines 27-30.
He asked for the rationale to charge violations as a separate
case. He read:
(b) A violation of this section must be charged and
filed with the court as a separate case and may not be
combined or joined with any other minor offense or
criminal charge in one action at the time of filing.
2:34:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that it was due to the
joinder limit, mirroring underage alcohol violations. He stated
that the CourtView system must keep cases separate so the
conviction would not appear on CourtView. The joinder limit
makes that possible. Suppose a 19-year-old was charged with
possessing marijuana, but the person was also charged for
reckless driving or vandalism. The Alaska Court System could
remove all of the charges or none of the charges due to its
database limitations. Thus, it was important to separate the
violation for underage possession of marijuana from other crimes
so that the court system can treat the marijuana conviction on
its own in CourtView. The same would be true for underage
possession of alcohol.
2:36:01 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, added that both bills primarily
addressed protecting records of marijuana crimes for those 21
years of age and older. However, one stipulation in Sections 4
and 7 was that the person must not have been convicted of any
other criminal charges in that case. She noted that these same
CourtView database limitations apply to adults charged with
possessing marijuana under one ounce.
MS. GROSS clarified that those cases were being reviewed
retroactively. The bill sets up the crime of misconduct in the
second degree. Again, the case must be set up separately so it
can be removed from CourtView. She explained that an officer
from the Department of Law would issue the citation, but
prosecutors would be involved in rare instances. It was similar
to how the department handles minor consuming cases by setting
them up as a separate cases even if the person had other charges
in the case. DOL advised the sponsor that it should not be a
disincentive for officers to separate the charges filed in these
cases; in fact, it could be helpful to combine cases that
require prosecutor involvement stemming from other charges.
2:38:41 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked the sponsor if the goal was to direct the
Alaska Court System at some future point to pull the minor
convictions from CourtView. He said it appeared as though that
would be the point of the joinder prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered no, and apologized if he
had added some confusion to the conversation.
2:39:35 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to page 3, lines 27-29 of HB 246, which
read:
(b) A violation of this section must be charged and
filed with the court as a separate case and may not be
combined or joined with any other minor offense or
criminal charge in one action at the time of filing.
SENATOR MYERS stated that during discussions on SB 207, Ms.
Meade explained that the court system could only remove the
posting from CourtView if the marijuana possession charge were
the sole charge in the case. He wondered if the sponsor wanted
to make it easy to remove the charges for a minor use of
marijuana at a later date since that charge would be separated
from other charges.
2:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that was not the intent.
2:41:13 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that she was unsure
of Senator Myer's question. She stated that per Version I, cases
for misconduct involving marijuana for those 18, 19, and 20
years of age would not appear on CourtView. She referred to page
4, lines 20-22 of HB 246, which addresses the new offense
created by Section 5 for those individuals not under 18 or over
21 years of age. She clarified that the misconduct involving
marijuana must not include charges for other crimes since the
court system must remove all or none of the case. For example,
if a person were charged with possession of marijuana and had
committed another crime, such as theft or murder, the court
would need to remove all of the charges, which was not the
legislature's intent.
SENATOR MYERS related his understanding that the point of
subsection (b) was for the court system to shield the marijuana
charges by not posting them to CourtView.
2:42:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS cautioned members about using the
term, minor, because the definition of a minor was an individual
[under] 18 years of age; however, this provision applied to
possession of marijuana charges for individuals 18, 19, and 20
years of age. He indicated that there was not any intent for the
bill to apply to minors.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the Alaska Court System had anything to
add.
2:43:23 PM
MS. MEADE said the Alaska Court System was neutral on the bill.
She indicated that the court system would be able to identify
those cases for misconduct involving marijuana for those 18, 19,
and 20 years of age. She stated that the court system would not
post the charges to CourtView if the legislature directs the
agency not to do so. She related that the court system already
handles minor consuming of alcohol cases in the same manner. She
appreciated that the bill had an extended effective date because
it would allow the court system to create a new case number, so
the process would happen automatically.
2:44:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the drafters may have created an
unintended glitch related to the offense of using or displaying
more than an ounce of marijuana.
CHAIR HOLLAND referred to page 3, line 26 of Version I, which
read "less than one ounce of marijuana.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that he might need to review it further.
He stated that it was a class B misdemeanor if a juvenile
knowingly used or displayed more than an ounce, which did not
change under the bill. It was also a class B misdemeanor for
anyone 21 years of age or older to possess more than an ounce.
However, he believed that possession of more than an ounce for
those ages 18, 19, and 20 would be a violation. He asked whether
the intent was to lower that penalty.
2:45:42 PM
MS. GROSS agreed it appeared to be a drafting mistake. She
referred to page 3, lines 24-26, which read:
(a) A person 18, 19, or 20 years of age commits the
offense of minor misconduct involving marijuana
if the person knowingly uses or displays any
amount of marijuana or possesses less than one
ounce of marijuana.
MS. GROSS agreed that was not the sponsor's intention. That
provision would allow someone to be charged with possessing
three ounces of marijuana and have their record shielded. The
sponsor intended it to shield records on CourtView for those
possessing less than one ounce of marijuana, as specified in the
other sections of the bill related to AS 11.71.060. She noted
that would also match the scope of convictions for those 21
years and older.
2:47:00 PM
SENATOR MYERS related his understanding that other criminal
offenses were blocked from CourtView. He asked which offenses
were shielded.
MS. MEADE responded that the other violations not posted on
CourtView were minor in possession of alcohol or control of
alcohol, commonly called minor consuming or minor on unlicensed
premises. In addition, three statutes cited in court rules in AS
28 would also be shielded from view in CourtView, including
minor driving after receiving a minor consuming citation. She
clarified that this offense was not for driving while under the
influence (DUI) of alcohol. Further, two traffic-related
violations would not be posted to CourtView.
2:48:26 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that the committee discussed removing
possession of marijuana charges prior to legalizing marijuana
through the initiative process. He asked whether anything
changed in the House version that would affect posting on
CourtView any current and future charges for possession of
marijuana rather than clearing up prior charges.
2:49:29 PM
MS. MEADE responded that the intent of HB 246 was to remove
possession of marijuana charges of less than an ounce for those
over the age of 21 on CourtView and shield them from certain
criminal history records checks by the Department of Public
Safety. Theoretically, no one over the age of 21 would be
charged going forward. This bill does not touch anyone charged
with possession of less than an ounce of marijuana who is under
18 years of age. It will still be a misdemeanor. Currently, the
penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for
those ages 18, 19, and 20 is a class B misdemeanor, which would
be reduced to a violation under the bill. The person would
receive a citation and not need to appear in court. She stated
that going forward the court system would not post the citation
on CourtView. She summarized the effect of the changes. She
stated that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for
adults was permissible; those ages 18-20 would receive a
violation that would not appear on CourtView; and those [under]
18 years of age would be subject to a class B misdemeanor and
not be posted to CourtView because the Division of Criminal
Justice handles juvenile crimes.
2:50:47 PM
MS. GROSS added that removing the misdemeanor conviction from
CourtView would not happen retroactively for those ages 18, 19,
and 20. She stated that reducing the crime from a misdemeanor to
a violation or the removal from CourtView would only happen
going forward for those ages 18, 19, and 20.
CHAIR HOLLAND invited Ms. Howell to comment on behalf of the
Department of Public Safety.
2:51:34 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that DPS
supports the changes in HB 246. The bill would help ensure that
those encountering housing or employment difficulties due to
convictions for possession of marijuana don't incur those
challenges in the future.
2:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that House Finance amended
the bill after seeing how alcohol and marijuana were treated
differently. He offered his view that the Finance Committee
wanted to treat alcohol and marijuana offenses similarly in a
regulatory and legal manner.
2:53:27 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 246 in committee.
2:53:49 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 196 Sponsor Statement 2.21.22.pdf |
SEDC 3/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 Sectional 2.25.22.pdf |
SEDC 3/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 Legal Memo.pdf |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| Comparison of HB 246 and SB 207.pdf |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sectional Analysis ver I.pdf |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sponsor Statement Version I.pdf |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Explanation of Changes ver B to I.pdf |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| Testimony for SB196 25 march 2022.docx |
SJUD 4/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 196 |