03/18/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| SB35 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
AALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2019
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 35
"An Act eliminating marriage as a defense to certain crimes of
sexual assault; relating to enticement of a minor; relating to
harassment in the first degree; relating to harassment in the
second degree; relating to indecent viewing or production of a
picture; relating to the definition of 'sexual contact';
relating to assault in the second degree; relating to
sentencing; relating to prior convictions; relating to the
definition of 'most serious felony'; relating to the definition
of 'sexual felony'; relating to the duty of a sex offender or
child kidnapper to register; relating to eligibility for
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES
03/13/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/19 (S) JUD
03/18/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 35
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/19 (S) JUD, FIN
02/13/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/13/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/13/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/18/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/22/19 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/25/19 (S) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
02/28/19 (S) JUD AT 5:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/19 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/04/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/19 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/08/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/19 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/13/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/13/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 89.
CHAD HUTCHISON, Majority Counsel
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and sectional
analysis on SB 89.
VIKKI JOE KENNEDY, representing herself
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 89,
urging members to stay accountable and ethical.
DAN WAYNE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
89.
BUDDY WHITT, Staff
Senator Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and presented amendments
for CSSB 35, Version U, on behalf of Senator Hughes, Chair.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
35.
REGINA LARGENT, Staff
Senator Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
35 on behalf of Senator Hughes, Chair.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director
Criminal Division
Central Office
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
35.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:09 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Reinbold, Micciche, Shower, and Chair
Hughes.
CHAIR HUGHES made brief opening remarks.
SB 89-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS
1:32:43 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics
Act; and providing for an effective date."
1:33:31 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, as
sponsor of SB 89, paraphrased from his sponsor statement:
SB 89 clarifies uncertainties that have emerged after
the 2018 passage of SCS CSSSHB 44(STA) (known as
"House Bill 44" or "HB 44"). Specifically, certain
portions of HB 44 eroded Alaskans' ability to have
full, constitutionally required representation by a
citizen legislature. In some cases, conflict
provisions are currently so restrictive that a
legislator cant live in "the real world," with a
family, and do the duties that they were elected to
do.
For example, successful miners can't carry a mining
bill. Successful commercial fishermen can't carry a
fishing bill. The alleged "conflicted" subject matter
can only be discussed in a public forum, including a
committee and the floor, and only upon declaring a
conflict to the legislature.
In addition: A legislator's spouse or immediate family
cannot be connected to the alleged "conflicted"
subject matter either. In essence, legislators that
have a certain expertise in a field, or that are most
knowledgeable, or because of broad family connections,
can't talk about multiple subject areas that are
important to the state of Alaska, except under,
essentially, unreasonably tight conditions.
Those elements combined damage the legislative
process. Currently there can be no private meetings on
any "conflicted" subject matter. There are severe
restrictions on "official action," in multiple forms
(including drafting of legislation and mere
discussion). A vast "net" of alleged "conflict" now
exists because of the bill's language extending
"conflict" to immediate family members. "Conflicts"
have been expanded to "financial interests" and
measured against "the general public."
What are the proposed changes? 1. Definitions are
being changed back to the way they existed, prior to
HB 44 (2018). 2. The "committee process" language is
being removed. 3. "Financial interest" is being
changed to back to "equity or ownership interest." 4.
eneral public" is being returned to "substantial
class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a
member of a profession, occupation, industry, or
region." 5. There is an immediate effective date.
Please join the Senate Rules Chair in supporting this
necessary legislation.
1:33:56 PM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Majority Counsel, Senator John Coghill, Juneau,
introduced himself.
1:34:12 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated the genesis of SB 89. Last year the
legislature passed House Bill 44, which changed provisions
related to ethical standards of conduct. He referred to two of
ten sections in AS 24.60.030(a)-(j). It became clear that the
bill made it more difficult to determine unethical behavior
since the law extended to legislators' family members and
private activities, making the law ambiguous. Legislators who
want to follow the ethics law became unsure of entanglement due
to their knowledge and expertise on issues. For example, one
legislator who also works in the mining industry has gained
substantial knowledge about the industry. Under House Bill 44
law, this legislator could not hold conversations about the
industry, offer amendments, or craft a bill to address issues
within the industry because the legislator exceeded the $10,000
limit on earnings.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that these concerns were not the
typical ethical concerns but are ones related to the process.
The current ethics law raised serious doubts about what
legislators could do.
SENATOR COGHILL referred to an advisory opinion that was
approved in November [2018 by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. He offered additional examples, such as
legislators whose family members work in the oil and gas
industry, could not participate in the bill process except to
hold public discussions or vote on the floor. Instead, these
legislators would need to declare a conflict of interest and ask
to be excused from voting. Again, these provisions were so broad
that legislators felt the need to declare a conflict if they or
their family members were involved in or had knowledge of any
industry in Alaska, he said.
1:37:39 PM
SENATOR COGHILL referred to SB 89 to AS 24.60.030(f)-(g), which
reset the standards of conduct and reverts to the pre-House Bill
44 ethics law. It would remove the language related to family
members. He explained that under House Bill 44 law, a legislator
might later find out that a family member had earnings of
$10,000 or more on an issue that came before the legislature,
making the legislator "unethical" after the fact. Under SB 89,
if legislators are seeking employment or acquire benefits or
losses, they can declare a conflict of interest and ask to be
excused from voting. Post-House Bill 44 law extends beyond
identifying unethical behavior and created a process that lended
doubt about whether legislators were following the ethics law.
The ethics law is designed to promote public trust, he said.
He clarified that SB 89 would not rewrite the entire Ethics Act
but would revert to ethics language that would clearly identify
conflicts of interest. He acknowledged that the legislature may
decide to revise the standard of conduct code at a later date.
He characterized SB 89 as a discrete reset that clarifies
ethical behavior. He emphasized that legislators want to serve
the public and uphold the highest standards. He said that his
staff will explain how the bill accomplishes this.
1:40:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the change in
disclosures.
SENATOR COGHILL said that SB 89 reverts to pre-House Bill 44 law
to address conflict of interest disclosures within a committee
and on any floor vote. He said it is very important before
official action occurs that any disclosures are made, which is
the floor vote.
1:41:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 2, line 16, of SB 89 to the
language "shall not vote" instead of "shall declare a conflict
of interest." She asked whether this is the intent.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that Section 2 pertains to the Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature and states that
legislators may not vote if they have an equity or ownership
interest in an issue that is beyond a substantial class of
people. For example, if a legislator is the only one receiving a
pay raise or obtaining a contract, he/she may not vote. The
legislator must stand up on the floor, state the conflict, and
make a motion to be excused from voting. It is up to the body to
excuse the legislator from voting, he said.
He deferred to Chad Hutchison to provide reasons why legislators
should vote even when the perception of a conflict of interest
exists. He said it really comes down to legislators'
constitutional duty to represent their constituents and
determine when they have a real conflict of interest. He said
that the "perceived conflict" is a bigger problem than the
actual conflict. He said that having a motion in front of a
committee could create a "perceived conflict." He said that SB
89 would like to return it to a real conflict.
1:43:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said it could be viewed as strengthening the
ethics law.
SENATOR COGHILL said that if legislators have a real conflict,
they should not be allowed to vote. He said the distinction is
if the individual benefit is greater than the group benefit, the
legislator should not vote. He said that it typically has not
happened in the legislature. However, the current law is so
ambiguous that it creates perceived conflicts. He said that the
pre-House Bill 44 law has been tested in the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. It makes everyone think about real
conflicts, he said.
1:45:38 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she understands that the bill drafters did not
realize how the ethics law would be interpreted under House Bill
44 law. She asked whether the sponsor was aware of specific
problems during his tenure in the legislature. She hoped for
reassurances that problems would not be bubbling up if this bill
passes.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that Alaska has a citizen legislature,
comprised of legislators with backgrounds as pilots, in law
enforcement or the military. They work as teachers, accountants,
and lawyers. He worked in a Christian counseling position, he
said. He identified potential personal conflicts. For example,
if his pay was increased or his position was guaranteed, and he
did not declare a conflict, it would be unethical. He said if a
legislator was a teacher who worked in a school that was singled
out for raises, that would be a conflict and the legislator
should be excused from voting. However, it would not be
unethical if a legislator is a teacher and generally spoke about
[issues that affect schools] or if someone worked in an industry
and discussed issues related to the industry without obtaining a
specific benefit. In those instances, the legislator would
declare the perceived conflict, and the body would allow the
legislator to vote. During his 20 years serving as a legislator,
many perceived conflicts have been declared. However, no one has
had a specific cost or benefit that prevented him/her from
voting. Alaska has unique geographical fisheries and some people
believe that legislators who commercially fished had a conflict,
but the issues were broadly discussed, and they were not
prevented from voting. In Alaska, many legislators come from
industries or enterprises that are impacted by legislation,
including shipping, fishing, schools, and legal professions.
These legislators bring their expertise gained from working in
their respective fields, but unless they obtain a specific
benefit that exceeds the benefit others in the industry obtain,
they do not have a conflict of interest.
1:48:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it goes beyond the industry to obtaining a
benefit not given to "a substantial class of persons to which
the legislator belongs." He said that he has worked in the oil
and gas industry and in the fishing industry. He has always
declared a perceived conflict of interest when matters affecting
those industries are being voted on. However, the legislature
has rulings from [the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]
that they were acting on behalf of a substantial class and not
as individuals. He said that ethics should not be based on
whether legislators like the outcome, but rather if they have
real conflicts of interest.
1:49:57 PM
SENATOR COGHILL agreed. He said that SB 89 brings the definition
back to "a substantial class." Currently, a conflict of interest
could be related to an involvement in a business, property,
profession, private relation, or a source of income that results
in the legislator receiving or expecting to receive a benefit
greater than the general population. He offered his belief that
this would likely put most legislators in a unique circumstance.
He emphasized that the language needed to be changed to greater
than the effect on "a substantial class of persons to which the
legislation belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region"]. He emphasized the need to remove any
ambiguity in the ethics law. He characterized House Bill 44 law
as one that created unintended consequences.
1:51:26 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON said he would discuss some constitutional issues
that have arisen since House Bill 44 law was implemented. He
pointed out that during the committee process last year, Mr.
Wayne recognized constitutional issues with House Bill 44.
1:52:24 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 2.
To be clear: This bill does not repeal the majority of
the ethics legislation (House Bill 44)(2018) passed
last year
1:52:28 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON paraphrased slide 3.
The following remains intact:
trianglert Prohibitions on expenditures and contributions by
foreign-influenced corporations and foreign nationals
in state elections.
trianglert Limitations on member travel.
trianglert Per diem restrictions
trianglert The Legislative Council's ability to adopt policy on
per diem and moving expenses.
trianglert Lobbyist restrictions on buying food and beverages for
members or staff.
trianglert Gift restrictions to members
He noted that the gift restrictions to members of $250 or more
was not included in House Bill 44, but it still remains intact.
1:53:03 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she wanted the record to reflect she is eager
to fix the issues with the ethics law that have impacted her so
much.
1:53:22 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 4, "What this bill does:"
Simply resets the conflict provisions to the way they
were prior to House Bill 44
(HB44)(2018).
1:53:37 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 5, "Noteworthy: How many
Constitutional Issues Have Emerged Because of the Conflict
Provisions of HB44 (2018)?"
trianglert Alaska Constitution - Article II
Legislature - Diminishment of Core Legislative
Functions and Representation
trianglert Example: Successful miners can't talk or meet
("official action") about mining legislation in
private. In addition, the miner can't carry
legislation. Successful commercial fishermen/women
can't talk about commercial fishing in private.
The fishermen/women can't carry legislation.
trianglert Federal Constitution - First Amendment
Fundamental Right
trianglert Freedom of Speech for legislator and
constituents
trianglert Right to assemble
trianglert Right to petition the government for redress
trianglert Alaska Constitution Article I, Sections 1, 5, &
6
trianglert Article 1, Section 1 "Equal Rights"
trianglert Article 1, Section 5 "Freedom of Speech"
trianglert Article 1, Section 6 "Freedom to Assemble and
Petition"
He said that there are a number of constitutional problems with
the conflict provisions. He said this slide lists the
fundamental rights, which can be restricted, but the government
can only do so if it is necessary to a compelling governmental
interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored for the least
restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHINSON referred to the State of Alaska v. Planned
Parenthood case in 2007. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court
extensively discussed this issue.
He pointed out the list of fundamental rights on the slide,
beginning with the diminishment of core legislative functions
and representation. He said that the legislators need to be able
to talk to their constituents.
MR. HUTCHINSON said that Article I of the U.S. Constitution is
the most important section from the constitutional founders'
perspective. Any restriction of Article II rights granted by the
U.S. Constitution, such as voting or freedom of speech, must be
the least restrictive alternative. When legislators cannot talk
to certain constituent groups on legislation or potential bills,
based on their background or the constituents' background, it
represents a major constitutional violation. For example, one of
the reasons Senator Coghill got elected may be because he has
expertise in placer mining. However, he cannot speak with
constituents on these matters or propose legislative changes
under the current legislative ethics law. Instead, he must shift
the issue to someone else who may not have the background.
He said that the 14th Amendment contains a due process provision
and any infringement, such as liberty, must be narrowly tailored
in the least restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHISON reviewed the issues listed on slide 5 related to
the Alaska Constitution. He said that Article 1 provides that
similarly situated people cannot be treated differently. He
highlighted that people from the travel industry wanted to speak
with a legislator, but due to the connection to an immediate
family member, the group cannot meet with the legislator. He
emphasized that it is too broad, and not the least restrictive
alternative. He cautioned members to consider these factors when
amending this bill.
1:57:50 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 6, Section 1 amends AS
24.60.030(e)."
trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?
trianglert Currently, a legislator can only take official
action on an alleged "conflicted bill" in public
discussion or debate (including in committee and
on the floor).
trianglert In addition, the legislator is "conflicted" if
the subject matter is connected to the legislator
(or the legislator's immediate family) if the
legislator (or the immediate family) made over
$10,000 in the immediate 12-month period.
trianglert The practical result?
trianglert No private meetings about the "conflicted"
subject matter.
trianglert A severe restriction on official action, in
multiple forms (drafting of legislation,
discussion, etc.)
trianglert A vast "net" of "conflict" because of the
extension to the immediate family.
trianglert See Advisory Opinion 18 05 for more information.
He said it is noteworthy that the sponsor of House Bill 44
provided a chart that had two states with more than $10,000,
including Michigan and Texas with $25,000 as their threshold.
There was an acknowledgement that a wide scope exists for what
constitutes "conflicted" such as a percentage of a financial
interest in a particular business. Under the Alaska Supreme
Court interpretation of fundamental rights, it's important to
consider whether $10,000, the immediate 12-month period, or the
expansion to include family members is truly least restrictive.
He suggested these things will be debated by legislators through
the committee process.
MR. HUTCHINSON said the practical result of [House Bill 44]
means that no private meetings can be allowed. It severely
restricts official action, including drafting legislation or
amendments. Further, the net of conflict has been extended to
include family members and is not the least restrictive
alternative, as compared to pre-2018 law, he said.
1:59:40 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 7, "What are the proposed
changes?"
trianglert The language is returned to the language used
before 2018, prior to the passage of HB 44.
trianglert This includes the following:
trianglert The language is returned to "unless
required by the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature."
trianglert Passages that restrict legislator
advocacy to only narrow avenues of
public discussion or debate are
eliminated.
trianglert The language re: "immediate family" is
eliminated.
trianglert The income threshold of "$10,000" for
the "preceding 12-month period" is
removed.
He pointed out the bill would return to the language in Uniform
Rule 34(b). He pointed out that Mason's Manual rules are also
tied to this rule. He suggested reviewing Sections 24, 522 and
560 of Mason's Manual. He referred to Advisory Opinions 0402,
0801, 1105, and 1301 to provide interpretations of conflict
prior to passage of House Bill 44 in 2018. He emphasized that
concern about extending conflicts to legislators' immediate
family and the $10,000 threshold exist because they are not the
least restrictive alternatives. Other states have higher
thresholds and these issues must be debated.
2:01:12 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 8, "Section 2 - Amends AS
24.60.030(g)."
trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?
trianglert Currently, conflicts (which are expanded) have to
be declared in the committee process and the
floor.
trianglert Conflicts are expanded to "financial interests"
of a business, investment, real property, lease,
or other enterprise. There is an expansion to
measuring the "interest" against "the general
public."
trianglert The practical result?
trianglert Discussion on relevant issues is severely
restricted.
trianglert Conflicts will have to be declared in the
committee process. If there is an alleged
"conflict," there are legitimate concerns
about passing otherwise viable legislation
from the committee because members would be
barred from private discussion on certain
topics.
trianglert A broadening of the "scope of conflict" cast
a "wide net."
2:02:38 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 9, "What are the proposed
changes?"
trianglert The committee process" language is being
removed.
trianglert "Financial interest" is being changed to back to
"equity or ownership interest."
trianglert "General public" is being returned to
"substantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a profession,
occupation, industry, or region.
2:03:16 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 10, "Section 3 simply repeals AS
24.60.030(j)(2) and 24.60.990(a)(6)."
AS 24.60.030(j)(2) says:
"substantially benefit or harm" means the
effect on the person's financial
interest is greater than the effect on the financial
interest of the general public of the
state.
trianglert This language is being removed.
trianglert Reasoning:
trianglert Clarifies uncertainty.
trianglert Fairly easily, a legislator can have an
alleged "substantial" "financial interest" in
a specific area that's greater than most of
the general public of the state. The spectrum
is wide as it can pertain to businesses,
investments, real property, leases, or,
broadly, other enterprises.
trianglert Since the language of "general public" in AS
24.60.030(g) is being changed back to
ubstantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region,"
this passage is appropriate for removal.
2:04:07 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 11, "Section 3 - Continued
trianglert AS 24.60.990(a)(6) says:
"financial interest" means ownership of an
interest or an involvement in a business,
including a property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of
income, or from which, or as a result of
which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit.
trianglert This language is being removed.
trianglert Reasoning:
trianglert Since the language of "financial
interest" is being changed in AS
24.60.030(g) back to "equity or
ownership interest," this provision is
being removed.
2:04:41 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 12, titled "Section 4."
trianglert Section 4 makes the act effective immediately.
2:04:57 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 13, "This clarification attempts
to find the right balance."
trianglert High moral and ethical standards among public servants
in the legislative branch are essential to government
trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this
state. See Advisory Opinion 19-01. See also AS
24.60.010(1).
trianglert Right of members to represent their constituencies is
of such major importance that members should be barred
from their constitutionally required representative
duties only in clear cases of personal enrichment.
trianglert
Members are encouraged to review Uniform Rule 34(b),
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure at sections
241, 522, 560, Advisory Opinion 2004-02, Advisory
Opinion 2008-01, Advisory Opinion 2011-05, and
Advisory Opinion 2013-01 for interpretations of
conflict prior to 2018
2:05:48 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to the final slide, slide 14, "Questions?"
2:05:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he was unsure of some of the constitutional
arguments, especially in terms of the least restrictive means.
The legislature is exempt from the Open Meetings Act, which is a
set of rules imposed on the executive branch, school districts,
and municipalities. It is vastly more restrictive than anything
the legislature is operating under. He asked whether the Open
Meetings Act is unconstitutional.
MR. HUTCHINSON explained that what he can say is
unconstitutional is when constituents cannot meet with their
legislators because of conflict provisions related to House Bill
44 law. That is unconstitutional because it prohibits
legislators who have a similar background from participating on
an issue, whether it is mining and the legislator is a miner, or
fishing and the legislator is a fisherman. He said that
commenting on the Open Meetings Act is beyond the scope of his
testimony today. He emphasized that infringements, such as
constituents not being able to meet at any level with their duly
elected representatives due to a conflict provisions that are
too strict is a violation.
2:07:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL turned to disclosure. He asked whether he was
arguing that constitutional issues exist with disclosure.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that is correct. It has to be the least
restrictive alternative in terms of disclosures. He pointed out
the sponsor of House Bill 44 law presented information that
indicates other states disclosure levels are much higher, with
Texas and Michigan at $25,000. In addition, the scope of what
qualifies as immediate family is much more limited. The problem
in Alaska is that the scope is broadened so much it essentially
prohibits people from talking to their legislators and violates
Article I and Article II of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that disclosure does not have anything
to do with who legislators can talk to or what meetings can be
held. He acknowledged he is not an attorney, but he was pretty
sure that "least restrictive" does not mean that [Alaska] must
adopt the highest state threshold for dollar amounts. He said
that the public official financial disclosures require
disclosure threshold of $1,000. He asked whether those reporting
requirements are unconstitutional.
MR. HUTCHINSON related his understanding he was talking about
disclosures. He clarified that he is not discussing the Alaska
Public Offices Commission disclosures that candidates and
legislators must file, although they coalesce, but this is
something different. He explained that if the monetary amount
affects your immediate family and that creates such a broad
scope of conflict that legislators are prohibited from talking
with representative groups that may have the same background as
your wife, husband, or immediate family, it raises the issue as
to whether it is truly the least restrictive alternative. He
offered his belief that this will be an ongoing debate. He
argued that the legislature operated for years [prior to passage
of House Bill 44] so it obviously was not the least restrictive
alternative.
2:10:13 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out she served on the Legislative
Ethics Committee when the two advisory opinions were issued. She
said she thought they went far beyond [the least restrictive
alternative], and she was pretty frustrated with the advisory
opinions. In fact, she was a dissenting vote. She recalled the
opinion would impact legislators who belonged to a union, Native
organization, fishing group, oil and gas industry, or health
care. She anticipated that it would affect every legislator. She
acknowledged the public wants ethical legislators, but if it
creates barriers for constituency groups concerned about an
issue important to the district, it is problematic.
2:11:51 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 89.
2:12:15 PM
VIKKI JOE KENNEDY, representing herself, Kodiak, urged members
to stay accountable and ethical. She stated that she has been in
Juneau for the last fifteen months. She said she was in Juneau
when House Bill 44 passed the legislature last year. She said
that any bill that holds everyone accountable and cautious about
ethics is a good thing. She was told in January she could not
talk to a senator. She said when legislators sit on boards and
legislators can financially benefit [from decisions made by the
board], it could be an issue. She said she has seen "a lot of
fine things" happening [in the legislature], but she thinks
strictness makes everyone "stay aware". She said she has carried
a copy of the [Constitution of the State of Alaska] with her
since she arrived in Alaska. She urged members to stay
accountable and ethical. She said she appreciates the work the
committee was doing on SB 89.
2:14:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 89.
2:14:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to language being repealed in the
definition section of the ethics law. He said that deletes
language [in AS 24.60.990(a)(6), "financial interest" means
ownership of an interest or an involvement in a business,
including a property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or as a
result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit.] He read the language, "from which, or as a
result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit." He asked if SB 89 were to pass, whether
legislators would not need to disclose any "hefty" increase or
benefit they received from a program implemented via legislative
action.
MR. HUTCHINSON said he thought the person would be subject to
APOC, depending on the amount. He said that advisory opinions
required certain disclosures must occur. There have been ethical
rulings on a case-by-case basis on whether it represented a
substantial interest. He stated, informally, that anything over
$250 is generally interpreted as a substantial interest by the
Legislative Ethics Committee. He presumed that if it is a
significant amount, it must be disclosed on the legislative APOC
reports. He emphasized that this bill does not change any of the
APOC reporting requirements, but it ensures that the scope of
influence is not expanded so much that people cannot meet with
certain groups since they have common ties or their immediate
family.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the legislative legal counsel if anything in
SB 89 changes what must be disclosed in the APOC financial
disclosure.
2:16:54 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, answered that it does not. He said that
SB 89 changes what must be disclosed on the floor, but not the
financial disclosures under AS 24.60.200.
SENATOR KIEHL clarified his question, that if it is not through
an equity interest in a business or real estate, but it would
enhance his finances, whether he would not have to rise and
declare [a conflict of interest on the floor.]
MR. WAYNE interpreted the bill to mean that the income could
fall under "other enterprise" or "business, investment real
property, or lease." If it did not fall under one of those
categories, then Senator Kiehl is correct that it would not need
to be disclosed or require requesting to abstain from a vote.
CHAIR HUGHES asked under SB 89, if it were to pass, whether the
disclosure would only apply if it gave that person a benefit
beyond the people in that industry or class or region.
MR. WAYNE answered that is correct. He directed attention to
lines 23-24, "a substantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region class of persons." He said that language
would modify part of the sentence before that language, that it
is all part of one calculation. He said that at the end of that
calculation the legislator would need to determine whether to
disclose a conflict or request to abstain.
2:19:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the conduct Senator Kiehl is
describing would either be bribery or else the legislator must
report it as a conflict of interest. He clarified that if the
legislator was the only one receiving the benefit or the benefit
is separate from the substantial class, it represents a true
conflict that must be declared, and the legislator cannot vote.
Legislators still must declare any perceived conflicts so the
whole world has knowledge. For example, if he owned rental units
and a bill came before the legislature related to landlord-
tenant rights, he would declare a perceived conflict prior to
voting on the measure even though the law would affect him the
same as anyone else who is a landlord. Therefore, he would not
have a true conflict of interest and would be allowed to vote on
the bill.
2:21:04 PM
MR. WAYNE said that he appreciates that clarification. He
related a scenario in which a legislator is not being paid for
his/her vote, but the legislator would still benefit from
legislation, such as a tax break, or something other people will
not get. He said if the legislator did not own a business,
investment, real property, lease, or other enterprise, then [the
language in SB 89] is silent. He asked whether it is okay for a
[legislator] to benefit as long as it is not a business or
investment benefit.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that without him mentioning "a
substantial class," that his answer is incomplete.
MR. WAYNE agreed. He acknowledged that if a legislator is going
to be $2,000 richer next year if the bill passes is one thing,
but if the bill is a permanent fund dividend bill everyone else
benefits, so he/she would not need to declare a conflict of
interest.
MR. HUTCHINSON explained that it would be determined on a case-
by-case basis, which is the reason for the advisory opinions. He
pointed out that other avenues exist if people think unethical
behavior is occurring, such as censure. Elections and recalls
can remove people from office, and sanctions exist for people
who are unethical. Currently, a particular representative has
ongoing sanctions with financial repercussions.
SENATOR KIEHL said, "Not if you write those rules out of the
law. Then those avenues are not available, right?"
MR. HUTCHINSON answered no, that the behavior occurred before
House Bill 44 and it exists to this day. The individual member
is still making payments because of behavior that was found to
be unethical.
2:24:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he will have to do research on the member who
was found to be unethical without violating any of the ethics
code.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that there was a violation.
[SB 89 was held in committee.]
SB 35-CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE
[Contains discussion of SB 34.]
2:25:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 35, "An Act eliminating marriage as a defense to
certain crimes of sexual assault; relating to enticement of a
minor; relating to harassment in the first degree; relating to
harassment in the second degree; relating to indecent viewing or
production of a picture; relating to the definition of 'sexual
contact'; relating to assault in the second degree; relating to
sentencing; relating to prior convictions; relating to the
definition of 'most serious felony'; relating to the definition
of 'sexual felony'; relating to the duty of a sex offender or
child kidnapper to register; relating to eligibility for
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."
2:25:14 PM
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks.
2:25:43 PM
At-ease.
2:27:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
2:27:43 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1873\U.1, Radford, 3/13/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "relating to assault in the second
degree;"
Page 6, line 24, through page 7, line 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 28:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 15"
Page 22, line 30:
Delete "sec. 17"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 22, line 31:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 23, line 1:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 18"
Page 23, line 4:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 22"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 23, line 7:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 25"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:28:03 PM
BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, on behalf of Chair Hughes, stated that
Amendment 1 was previously discussed [on March 13]. He referred
to page 6, line 24 through page 7, line 13, related to sexual
assault in the first degree and enhanced sentencing structure
for sexual assault in the third degree. This enhanced sentencing
structure was put into a previous bill, SB 12, and is no longer
needed in this bill.
2:28:59 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what would happen if SB 12 does not pass.
MR. WHITT answered that this provision would not pass. He
suggested that the committee could keep the language in both
bills, but the language should be identical.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the language is
similar but not identical. She said that removing the language
would clear up any ambiguity and if SB 12 were to falter, the
committee could look at another vehicle.
SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding that a different
version was in the other body.
2:29:58 PM
At-ease.
2:31:16 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
2:31:26 PM
MR. WHITT said that several sections of the bill were removed
and placed in SB 12. He reminded members that it was the will of
the committee to make SB 12 a stand-alone vehicle to address the
issues in the Justin Schneider case and it includes the enhanced
sentence structures for sexual assault and assault.
2:32:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
2:32:14 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD objected to ask whether enhanced sentencing
will not be in effect if SB 12 does not pass.
MR. WHITT agreed that if SB 12 does not pass that there would
not be any enhanced sentencing, clarification on the definition
of sexual contact, credits for electronic monitoring or a fix
for the Justin Schneider loophole since those provisions are in
SB 12.
SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding that if SB 12 does
not pass there will not be any enhanced sentencing, which is the
reason she raised the "red flag" to make sure people understand
the implications. She expressed her concern
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.
CHAIR HUGHES indicated that multiple vehicles exist to remedy
this, including floor amendments.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:33:36 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said many of the amendments were generated from her
office. She asked Senator Reinbold to move Amendment 2.
2:33:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-
GS1873\U.6, Radford, 3/13/19.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "relating to eligibility for discretionary
parole;"
Page 17, line 29, through page 20, line 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, lines 8 - 10:
Delete all material.
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
2:34:12 PM
MR. WHITT explained that Amendment 2 would remove language that
is in another bill, SB 34, which is in the committee. It relates
to discretionary parole. When the original bills for SB 34 and
SB 35 were read across, the sections related to discretionary
parole matched. However, because the Senate State Affairs
Standing Committee made a change to SB 34, and the committee
amended SB 35, this language is being removed to avoid having
two competing provisions in separate vehicles.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the issues will remain if SB 34
does not pass.
CHAIR HUGHES responded that she hopes that SB 34 passes since
discretionary parole issues are very important. However, if SB
34 does not pass, the issues will remain.
MR. WHITT agreed, that if SB 34 does not pass, the provisions
[related to discretionary parole] will not pass.
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that if SB 34 does not pass, SB 35
could be amended on the floor.
2:35:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:36:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 31-
GS1873\U.11, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 12, line 1:
Delete "the elements"
Insert "those"
Delete "under state"
Insert "defined as such under Alaska"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. WHITT explained Amendment 3, stating that it makes a slight
change to the bill. He referred to page 12, line 1. This
corrects a drafting error. He referred to page 11, line 31
[through page 12, line 2] of SB 35, Version U, which read, "(D)
a conviction in this or another jurisdiction of an offense
having elements similar to the elements of a felony under state
law at the time the offense was committed is considered a prior
felony conviction;". It should be changed to read, "(D) a
conviction in this or another jurisdiction of an offense having
elements [similar to] those of a felony [defined as such under
Alaska] law at the time the offense was committed is considered
a prior felony conviction;" and said that this makes a minor
technical change and also adds "defined as such under Alaska."
This means that if an offense occurs in another state that is
similar law in the State of Alaska it is considered a prior
felony conviction in the state.
2:37:56 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked him to repeat the proposed language.
2:38:05 PM
MR. WHITT read, "having elements similar to those of a felony
defined as such under Alaska law at the time the offense was
committed is considered a prior felony conviction;".
2:38:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to the language in other sections of the
bill [that is existing law]. He asked whether this language in
other subsections should conform to the [language in Amendment
3].
MR. WHITT deferred to the Department of Law (DOL) to respond.
2:39:29 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, responded that
this language was copied from page 10, lines 13-15, which read:
(B) a conviction in this or another jurisdiction of an
offense having elements similar to those of a felony
defined as such under Alaska law at the time the
offense was committed is considered a prior felony
conviction;
MS. SCHROEDER said this language was inserted [in subparagraph D
on page 12, line 1] to restore this provision.
SENATOR KIEHL referred to language on page 1, lines 24-26.
(A) a conviction in this or another jurisdiction of an
offense having elements similar to those of a most
serious felony is considered a prior most serious
felony conviction;
He also referred to language on page 11, lines 17-19.
(A) a conviction in this or another jurisdiction of an
offense having elements similar to those of a most
serious felony is considered a prior most serious
felony conviction;
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether these provisions should conform to
the language in Amendment 3. He noted that this could be handled
at another time.
2:40:42 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether the language "having elements
similar to" is clear enough under law. He wondered what happens
if [another jurisdiction] charged a crime as a class A
misdemeanor and Alaska charges it as a class B misdemeanor, but
the crimes were essentially the same.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that it is clear. She explained that
there are numerous instances of case law surrounding how the
state interprets "elements similar to" and that it is an element
by element analysis. The Department of Law will often argue it
before the court, but the court has the ultimate decision. She
reiterated that it is clear.
2:41:24 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:41:35 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 31-
GS1873\U.17, Bruce/Radford, 3/15/19.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 23, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The Department of Law,
the attorney general, the Department of Public Safety,
and the commissioner of public safety may adopt
regulations necessary to implement the changes made by
secs. 28 and 29 of this Act. The regulations take
effect under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act),
but not before the effective date of the relevant
provision of this Act implemented by the regulation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 35. Sections 27 - 29 of this Act take
effect July 1, 2020."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 23, line 16:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided by sec. 35 of this
Act, this"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WHITT said that Amendment 4 was requested by the Department
of Law. He referred to pages 20-21 to Sections 27, 28, and 29.
The committee would like to gather data on prosecutions of
sexual crimes and reasons cases are not documented. The
Department of Law (DOL) and the Department of Public Safety will
work in conjunction to gather data. Amendment 4 would set the
effective date, as requested by the DOL, to July 1, 2020 to
allow it enough time to efficiently gather and report the data.
2:43:01 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked to revert to Amendment 3. He asked whether
there is any conforming language in rest of the bill.
MS. SCHROEDER answered no.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if this language simply creates an
extension to allow the departments to coordinate their efforts
and it would not affect regulations.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the language in the committee
substitute (CS) for SB 35, Version U, is a new obligation for
the Department of Law. The DOL would need to develop a mechanism
to track the data and develop regulations. Amendment 4 would
give the department about a year to implement the change.
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:44:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 5, work order 31-
GS1873\U.4, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 6, line 19, following "section":
Insert "for a defendant convicted of a crime
involving a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100 or
a crime involving domestic violence as defined in
AS 18.66.990"
Page 6, lines 20 - 21:
Delete "by a preponderance of the evidence"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:44:39 PM
MR. WHITT explained Amendment 5, which was requested by Senator
Kiehl. He referred to page 6, line 19, which relates to
presumption of no contact orders. The language in Version U
includes the presumption of no contact orders for every single
crime in AS 12.55.015. However, the intent is that it would be
specific to AS 12.63.100, relating to sex offenses, and AS
18.66.990, which relates to crimes involving domestic violence.
Amendment 5 would specify no contact orders for those
provisions.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on the effect
of deleting "by a preponderance of the evidence.
2:45:34 PM
REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, answered that this was unnecessary
language, that the courts will use the lowest burden of proof
unless otherwise specified. This language was not requested and
was removed.
2:46:12 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
2:46:17 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 6, work order 31-
GS1873\U.12, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 6
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 13, line 1, following "degree":
Insert "if the victim is at least six years
younger than the offender"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WHITT referred to page 13, line 1 to Section 19 of SB 35.
The definition [in AS 12.55.185] for "sexual felony" was amended
to add conforming language due to changes in sexual abuse of a
minor in the third degree. However, language was inadvertently
omitted that would read, "if the victim is at least six years
younger than the offender".
MS. LARGENT related her understanding that this language was
originally in the bill but was removed. The Department of Law
asked that the language be added.
2:47:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the department thinks this is
well written.
MS. SCHROEDER nodded yes.
2:47:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES indicated that Ms. Schroeder, seated in the
audience, had nodded affirmatively.
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection, and after determining
Senator Shower had a question withdrew removing her objection.
2:47:58 PM
SENATOR SHOWER recalled the committee held a long discussion on
minors defined as younger than age 17. He asked for further
clarification that this change "lines up" with the issues
previously discussed.
MR. WHITT responded that an additional amendment will clarify
the language in Sections 7 and 12 of the bill related to minors.
2:49:01 PM
MS. LARGENT concurred that Mr. Whitt is correct that separate
amendments address those provisions. Further, the Department of
Law is working on other amendments to address it.
2:49:21 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that the discussion last week was
confusing. He said that identifying that the sexual assault
language related to minors needed to be updated came up, but he
has not been able to identify all the sections in statute that
pertain to sexual assault. He wanted to be certain that this
language "matches up." He asked for clarification on how six
years was determined.
2:50:34 PM
MS. SCHROEDER explained that Amendment 6 is cleanup language.
She related that the underlying bill makes it a sexual felony
sentence to the higher presumptive sentence when there is a six-
year age difference between the offender and the victim for
sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree.
She referred to the definition of sexual abuse of a minor in the
third degree [AS 11.41.438(a):
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a
minor in the third degree if being 17 years of age or
older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a
person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least
four years younger than the offender.
She said that if the victim is at least six years younger than
the offender, the offender would be sentenced as a class C
felony. However, the bill would acknowledge that a six-year age
difference is more predatory, and the crime would be a sexual
felony sentenced to the higher presumptive ranges associated
with sex felonies. Amendment 6 would clarify that aspect in the
definition of a sexual felony.
2:51:51 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that the committee received the amendments
this morning. She asked for further clarification on whether the
"newer fix" is a change from the original bill or if it refers
to the committee substitute.
MS. LARGENT referred to the internal document, not posted to
BASIS, which consisted of staff notes. One column was titled,
"new or fix." She stated that "fix" was intended as a reminder
that the amendment was something not drafted as requested, or
the Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency removed the language and Chair Hughes
requested that it be reinserted.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification that Amendment
4 referred to one specific crime.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes. She said that Amendment 4 would draw
the line at six years of an age difference. If the offender and
the victim were within six years of age, the offender would be
sentenced to a lower-level sentence. If the offender and victim
were six years apart or above, the offender would receive a
higher level of sentence. The crime in both instances would be
sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree, but two different
sentencing structures would be used, depending on the age
difference.
2:53:44 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification that the six-year
age difference would relate to sexual contact and not sexual
penetration, which would be more serious.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes.
2:54:08 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
2:54:16 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 7, work order 31-
GS1873\U.13, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 21, lines 12 - 19:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) develop a tool to track felony sex
offenses reported to the Department of Public Safety
by geographic location; the tracking tool must include
a means to record the reason a reported offense was
not referred for prosecution or, if referred, the
reason the offense was not prosecuted and, if
applicable, the reason a sex offense charged as a
felony resulted in a conviction of an offense other
than a sex offense under a plea agreement;
(2) develop regulations and procedures to
implement the requirements established under (1) of
this subsection; and
(3) provide training for the implementation
of the regulations and procedures established under
(2) of this subsection in each state department as
necessary."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:54:47 PM
MR. WHITT said that Amendments 7, 8, and 9 coincide. He
explained that the language in Sections 28 and 29 of the CSSB
35, Version U, related to gathering more data on cases and
reasons sexual felony cases are prosecuted or not to develop a
tool to track offenses. He said the language in the CSSB 35,
Version U was not the language requested. He reviewed the
language in Amendment 7, paragraphs (1)-(3), which specifically
lists the desired data and directive to the pertinent
departments.
2:56:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether this would ask the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to record [statistics] on defendants who are
found not guilty. He said if defendants are not prosecuted that
they are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. He asked
whether this would require tracking offenses that are not
prosecuted.
MR. WHITT responded that tracking the data would not include any
personal or proprietary information, but rather the number of
cases that were reported, but were not ultimately prosecuted.
Further, it would track cases that were reported but ultimately
dropped, as well as the number of cases that were pursued and
prosecuted. He characterized it as raw data not containing
personal information or data.
2:58:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification on this
section.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that the department views Amendment 7 as
a query for the reasons why cases are not prosecuted. The
department currently attempts to track these reasons internally.
She concurred with Mr. Whitt that this would require the
department to report the data. For example, the department
declined this many sexual felonies for these reasons,
evidentiary reasons, witness not available, or other reasons the
cases were not pursued.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether this was in the original bill and
for further clarification on the goal of this section.
2:59:15 PM
MR. WHITT explained that Sections 8 and 9 of the committee
substitute (CS) SB 35, Version U, were not in the original
version of the bill. Amendments 7-9 add language originally
requested by Chair Hughes and Vice Chair Reinbold in Version U.
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled that 43 percent of misdemeanors are
dismissed. She said she was uncertain about the number of
felonies that are dismissed, but 63 percent of [sexual assaults]
are unreported nationwide. She said this is a "red flag" for the
public and the reason she thinks the amendment is a good idea.
SENATOR SHOWER said he understood the value of obtaining data
and to track it. He expressed concern to ensure that the record
reflects the legislative intent on the type of data. He would
like the record to reflect that only raw data would be
collected.
3:01:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that the privacy of
individuals will be protected and that this relates to raw data
for statistical purposes.
MS. SCHROEDER agreed that is how the the Department of Law
interprets the language in Amendment 7.
3:01:39 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked the record to reflect that the legislature
wants the department to protect the privacy of individuals. He
said that the intent of Amendment 7 is to provide raw data only
and not any identifying data so the department can use it
appropriately.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed with the intent. He asked how granular the
DOL intends and the usefulness to future legislators. He
recalled the reports to the committee and his alarm at the
number of sex crimes that are not [prosecuted]. He wondered if
future legislators would interpret this to mean that victims do
not feel safe and to work on victim's services or police
training. He asked for further clarification on what types of
analysis legislators would be able to do with the collected
data.
3:02:55 PM
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the department views this as a new
area and she was unsure how granular, or the level of detail,
the department would obtain, but she offered to work with the
legislature to further define the type of information the
department should extract. She characterized it as a first step.
MR. WHITT referred to discussions in Chair Hughes's office. He
said that not knowing what can be done with the data is a moot
point. Once the legislature obtains the data and can analyze it,
it is possible the legislature can do something to improve the
numbers.
3:03:55 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she appreciated the discussion.
3:04:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
3:04:15 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 8, work order 31-
GS1873\U.14, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 8
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 21, lines 28 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) the number of sex offenses referred for
prosecution that were charged as a felony and, under a
plea agreement, resulted in a conviction for a crime
other than a sex offense."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WHITT explained that Amendment 8 would add previously
requested language. He referred to page 21, lines 28-29, [of the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 35 (JUD), Version U]
and read the language in Amendment 8. He explained that this is
clarifying language that also would add a bit more data.
3:05:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection, and after determining
Senator Micciche had a question, withdrew removing her
objection.
3:05:16 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said this language would only change paragraph
(3). He read paragraphs (1)-(3).
(1)the number of felony sex offenses reported to the
Department of Public Safety that were not referred for
prosecution;
(2) the number of felony sex offenses referred for
prosecution that were not prosecuted; and
(3) the number of felony sex offenses.
He asked whether a fourth paragraph should be added since
paragraph 3 of Amendment 8 only captures those cases under a
plea agreement.
3:06:18 PM
MS. SCHROEDER commented that Senator Micciche makes a good
point. The proposed language would exclude cases that were taken
to trial, and the defendant was acquitted on all sex offenses,
was convicted on a non-sex offense.
3:06:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 8, beginning on page 21, line 30, which would add
paragraph (4).
MR. WHITT interjected by relating that the Department of Law has
pointed out the effect of Amendment 8 could be achieved by
deleting the language "under a plea agreement."
3:07:27 PM
At-ease.
3:09:12 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
3:09:12 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE restated his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 8. On page 21, line 30, [of the CSSB
35, Version U] would renumber paragraph (3) of Amendment 8 to
paragraph (4) and insert the language, "the number of sex
offenses referred for prosecution that were charged as a felony
and, under a plea agreement, resulted in a conviction for a
crime other than a sex offense." This would essentially separate
the data for sex offenses under a plea agreement.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether this language should be broken down
further or if the [Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8] will
capture what is needed since the other categories were
mentioned.
MR. WHITT offered to read the language, as amended [by the
Conceptual Amendment to] Amendment 8. He directed attention to
page 21. Lines 28 and 29 would remain in the CS as written, but
a new paragraph (4) would be added. Amendment 8, as amended by
Conceptual Amendment 1, would read:
(3) the number of felony sex offenses that resulted in a
conviction for a crime other than a sex offense; and
(4) the number of sex offenses referred for prosecution
that were charged as a felony and, under a plea agreement,
resulted in a conviction for a crime other than a sex
offense.
3:11:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that a number of reasons exist for
prosecutors to decide not to charge a person of a sex offense,
but the offender could be convicted of a crime other than a sex
offense. However, Alaska ranks number one in the country for
sexual assaults. He stressed the importance of obtaining data to
help the legislature develop laws to reduce these numbers. A
separate category for plea agreements could help [the state] to
better understand the effect that plea agreements have on the
lack of convictions and how to identify and improve the number
of convictions. The importance of this has been highlighted by
the recent high-profile case that brought this to light, he
said.
CHAIR HUGHES said she appreciated this since it may help close a
loophole.
SENATOR SHOWER said his question was not answered. He asked
whether the two or three other categories previously mentioned
should also be added or if Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8
will capture the needed data. He was unsure if it was necessary
to break the categories out further for the fidelity of the
data.
MS. SCHROEDER asked whether he was referring to the other
categories in Section 29.
SENATOR SHOWER answered no. He recalled that in a previous
discussion the committee rattled off about four other
categories. However, he did not specifically recall the
categories.
MS. SCHROEDER offered her belief that the CSSB 35, Version U,
with Conceptual Amendment [1 to Amendment 8], would capture
everything necessary, including trial and non-trial plea
agreements.
SENATOR SHOWER said he wanted to be sure it captures the
necessary data.
3:13:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8 was adopted.
CHAIR HUGHES said that brings Amendment 8, as amended, before
the committee. There being no objection, Amendment 8, as
amended, was adopted.
3:13:56 PM
CHAIR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 9, work order 31-
GS1873\U.19, Radford, 3/15/19.
AMENDMENT 9
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR REINBOLD
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 13, line 11, following "resources":
Insert ", including the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Office of
Victims' Rights, and the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:14:24 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD explained that Amendment 9 would direct the
[Department of Corrections] to include the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, the Alaska Network on Domestic
violence and Sexual Assault, the Office of Victims' Rights, and
the Violent Crimes Compensation Board to provide clarity and be
more victim-focused in the bill.
3:14:42 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection. Amendment 9 was adopted.
3:15:12 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 10, work order 31-
GS1873\U.2, Radford, 3/14/19.
AMENDMENT 10
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "AND 24"
Insert "22, AND 25"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 3, line 7:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 13, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 12.63.010 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) Notwithstanding the requirement to register
under this section, a sex offender or child kidnapper,
as that term is defined in AS 12.63.100(6)(B), may
petition the department for removal from the central
registry of sex offenders and child kidnappers and to
be exempt from the registration requirements under
this section. The department shall grant the petition
if the petitioner submits proof acceptable to the
department that the facts underlying the conviction in
another jurisdiction do not constitute a sex offense
or child kidnapping in this state. When the petition
is granted, the department shall remove from the
central registry information about the sex offender or
child kidnapper as provided in AS 18.65.087(d)(4)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, line 14, following "section":
Insert "and of the procedure to petition for
removal from the central registry"
Page 15, line 23, following "occurred":
Insert ";
(3) procedures to remove a sex offender or
child kidnapper, as that term is defined in
AS 12.63.100(6)(B), from the central registry of sex
offenders and child kidnappers"
Page 17, following line 28:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 18.65.087(d) is amended to read:
(d) The Department of Public Safety
(1) shall adopt regulations to
(A) allow a sex offender or child kidnapper
to review sex offender or child kidnapper registration
information that refers to that sex offender or child
kidnapper, and if the sex offender or child kidnapper
believes the information is inaccurate or incomplete,
to request the department to correct the information;
if the department finds the information is inaccurate
or incomplete, the department shall correct or
supplement the information;
(B) ensure the appropriate circulation to
law enforcement agencies of information contained in
the central registry;
(C) ensure the anonymity of members of the
public who request information under this section;
(2) shall provide to the Department of
Corrections and municipal police departments the forms
and directions necessary to allow sex offenders and
child kidnappers to comply with AS 12.63.010;
(3) may adopt regulations to establish fees
to be charged for registration under AS 12.63.010 and
for information requests; the fee for registration
shall be based upon the actual costs of performing the
registration and maintaining the central registry but
may not be set at a level whereby registration is
discouraged; the fee for an information request may
not be greater than $10;
(4) shall remove from the central registry
of sex offenders and child kidnappers under this
section information about a sex offender or child
kidnapper
(A) required to register under
AS 12.63.020(a)(2) at the end of the sex offender's or
child kidnapper's duty to register if the offender or
kidnapper has not been convicted of another sex
offense or child kidnapping and the offender or
kidnapper has supplied proof of unconditional
discharge acceptable to the department;
(B) who has successfully petitioned the
Department of Public Safety to be removed from the
central registry of sex offenders and child kidnappers
under AS 12.63.010(g) [IN THIS PARAGRAPH, "SEX
OFFENSE" AND "CHILD KIDNAPPING" HAVE THE MEANINGS
GIVEN IN AS 12.63.100].
* Sec. 27. AS 18.65.087 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) In this section, "sex offense" and "child
kidnapping" have the meanings given in AS 12.63.100."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 22"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 23, line 7:
Delete "sec. 24"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 26"
Insert "sec. 29"
Page 23, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) AS 12.63.010(g), enacted by sec. 22 of this
Act, applies to the duty to register as a sex offender
for offenses committed before, on, or after the
effective date of sec. 22 of this Act."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion. She
indicated that Amendment 10 was Senator Kiehl's amendment. She
asked him to speak to Amendment 10.
3:15:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 10 is designed to address
the issue where sex offenders convicted in other jurisdictions
are required to register in Alaska, but the crime they were
convicted of is not considered a registerable sex offense in
Alaska. If the person can demonstrate to the Department of
Public Safety that the crime that the person was convicted of in
another state is not a crime in Alaska, the department can
remove the individual's name off the registry. He further
explained the process, such that the individual would need to
petition the department and provide proof that is acceptable to
the department. The state would maintain its constitutional duty
to write Alaska's laws, but still capture everyone who has been
convicted of crimes that are considered sex crimes in Alaska.
3:16:39 PM
CHAIR HUGHES expressed concern that the full faith and credit
clause in the U.S. Constitution requires states to honor the
judgments of other states. She asked whether Alaska would honor
the judgement or conviction in another state for a sex crime.
For instance, Alaska honors the domestic violence protective
orders from other states even if the orders do not align
identically with Alaska law.
3:17:22 PM
MS. LARGENT explained that the full faith and credit provision
in the U.S. Constitution provides a foundational way to view
this proposal. It really is not the distinction of whether
Alaska laws match other states, but if Alaska will give full
faith and credit for a conviction, a judgment, of a sex crime in
another state.
She provided an example, when Francis Scott Key argued that a
judgment between the states should be brought in as evidence.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice [Joseph] Story said
this interpretation would render the cause "utterly unimportant
and illusory." The court went on to hold that a judgment that is
rendered conclusive must be held conclusive elsewhere. She said
that subsequent case law has indicated that is not an
unqualified command. The courts have held that a jurisdiction
might go back and inquire whether a court had actual
jurisdiction. If not, it could raise due process issues. The
court goes back to see if new evidence contradicts that
judgment, which is "reaching back into the judgment." The
specific language has been that states are not required to
enforce a law from another state that is obnoxious to its public
policy. For example, if enforcing a sex crime judgment from
another state would be obnoxious to Alaska's public policy,
there is room for [argument], but unless that bar is met, under
the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit provisions, Alaska
is under somewhat of a directive to give credit to those
judgments.
3:20:35 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director, Criminal Division, Central
Office, Department of Law, Anchorage, said the issue with
Amendment 10 is that it would gut the underlying concept. Alaska
suffers from one of the worst sex offense rates in the country.
The public and the administration were concerned when Alaska's
statutes were interpreted during a case to mean that individuals
who moved to Alaska but were convicted of an offense that
required them to register as sex offenders in other states could
move to Alaska and not have to register as sex offenders.
He said that what upset people were examples of people who
committed offenses in other states who moved to Alaska and
committed sex offenses in Alaska. The intent behind [SB 35] is
to eliminate the incentive for individuals to seek out Alaska to
avoid sex offender registration requirements. The state may wish
to review and crimes in other states that require sex offender
registration but are not crimes in Alaska and consider if that
conduct should be criminalized. The goal is to avoid encouraging
sex offenders to come to Alaska to avoid sex offender registry.
He characterized it as hanging a sign over Alaska's door saying,
"Sex offenders welcome."
MR. SKIDMORE said that Amendment 10 is still stricter than
current law. However, it would require substantial effort by the
Department of Public Safety to compare Alaska's law to other
states' laws to determine the underlying conduct. One thing
pointed out by the New Mexico Supreme Court, which is cited in
the Doe case, is that if you follow this approach, it relies on
the conduct for which someone was convicted. Sometimes it is
very clear, but other times is not as clear. For instance, the
New Mexico court considered whether a person convicted of an
offense who was required to register, had been convicted using a
plea agreement without an allocution, meaning the defendant did
not stand up and recite the facts. In those instances, the
courts are left to compare the statutes but not the conduct
itself. The original bill was more encompassing since it said if
an offender is required to register in another state, the
offender must also register in Alaska. The DOL and
administration oppose Amendment 10 because it would gut the
concept, he said.
3:25:06 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he cannot support Amendment 10. He
reminded members that the committee worked on [SB 12] to close
the Justin Schneider loophole, because his crimes were not
considered sexual crimes. The legislature recognized these
actions should have been crimes. However, if someone had come to
Alaska who had recently strangled someone to the point of
unconsciousness [and done the things Justin Schneider did], he
would not be required to register in Alaska. He acknowledged
that Alaska has gaps, but some other states have done a very
good job. He said it does not work for him and he did not think
Amendment 10 works for Alaskans.
3:26:02 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he was not concerned with the U.S.
Constitution's full faith and credit issue since there is not
any opportunity to retry the facts or the conviction. This
simply looks at whether the facts would be registerable sex
crimes in Alaska. The legislature would not ask the Department
of Public Safety to judge the credibility of a witness. He
maintained his belief that it is not a full faith and credit
issue, but it relates to the Alaska Constitution. In the State
of Missouri, a person must register as a sex offender if he/she
is a teacher and has sex with a student, even if the student is
18 years old. Alaska has not made that a sex crime. In Michigan,
consensual sex between people within the third degree of kindred
is a registerable sex offense, but it is not in Alaska, which is
a conscious choice, and not a loophole in Alaska. Ultimately, it
is important to look at what actions constitute a registerable
sex crime in Alaska. He said that troopers look at the elements
of the offense all day long. And when they have a question, they
call the lawyer for advice. He offered his belief that
administering this is straightforward. The presumption is that
sex offenders must register and the burden of proof that it does
not constitute a sex crime in Alaska is on the offender. He
characterized it as a minor adjustment for the rare cases in
which Alaska has decided the conduct is not a crime.
3:28:58 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said that some of the examples do not track with
Alaska's law. He said that the Michigan law talks about incest
in the third degree, which is criminalized in Alaska. He offered
his belief that there are some factual errors. Further, he fails
to identify where in the Constitution of the State of Alaska it
shows some reason that someone should not have to register as a
sex offender. He said he goes back to the government's
compelling state interest to not encourage sex offenders to move
to Alaska to avoid having to register as sex offenders. He
acknowledged that the current law focuses only on elements and
that his amendment would have the department look at facts.
However, he was also trying to highlight that looking at facts
and determining what are the facts that resulted in the
conviction is not as easy as one might think without an
allocution from the defendant. Absent the allocution, the state
is left only with the elements, which is the problem the state
faces today. The issue becomes that Amendment 10 is not
achieving that underlying goal or principle of discouraging
people from moving to Alaska to avoid sex offender registry when
they have already committed sex offenses. Those are the reasons
the department is opposed to Amendment 10.
3:31:04 PM
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that Amendment 10 would put the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) in the position of making a
judgment in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the
U.S. Constitution by asking the department whether it will honor
judgments from other states and that concerns her. She said the
compelling interest to eliminate the problem of Alaska being a
magnet to sex offenders trumps everything. She said she will not
be supporting Amendment 10.
SENATOR KIEHL said the question of a plea agreement without
allocution, arguably leaves the offender in the unenviable
position of not being able to prove the facts do not match and
so he/she would have to register. That is how Amendment 10 is
written, he said. He said he appreciated Mr. Skidmore's talent
at hyperbole, but the State of Michigan's criminal sexual
conduct in the fourth degree is not the crime of incest.
3:32:27 PM
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:32:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 10 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, Shower, and Hughes
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed by a 1:4 vote.
CHAIR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 11.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:33:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the committee could continue since
the allotted committee time was up.
3:33:20 PM
At-ease.
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She said that she would
hold off on the remaining amendments.
[The committee treated Amendment 11 as not offered at this
time.]
3:34:12 PM
MR. WHITT said he would review the action the committee took on
Amendment 8.
[SB 35 was held in committee.]
3:35:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reviewed upcoming committee announcements.
3:35:23 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at
3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 89 - Bill - 3 13 19.PDF |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Sponsor Statement - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - PowerPoint Presentation - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Sectional Analysis - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Supporting Document - AO 19 01 - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| CSSB35 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| CSSB35 Explanation of Changes from Version A to U.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |