SB 134-MASTER GUIDE-OUTFITTER REQUIREMENTS  3:33:43 PM CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 134 "An Act relating to master guide-outfitter qualifications for licensure." 3:34:09 PM SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, speaking as sponsor of SB 134, stated the purpose of the bill is to address the unintended consequence of legislation passed in 2019 regarding the conditions under which the [Big Game Commercial Services Board] would take disciplinary action against guides who violate the law pertaining to their profession. SB 134 amends the language to work as intended. She expressed hope this issue could be resolved during this hunting season. She deferred a more detailed introduction of the bill to Ms. Lucky. 3:35:09 PM JULI LUCKY, Staff, Senator Natasha von Imhof, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 134 on behalf of the sponsor, paraphrasing the following sponsor statement: Senate Bill 134 clarifies under what conditions the Big Game Commercial Services Board would be required to revoke a Master Guide license. The bill corrects an unintended consequence due to different interpretations of language included in the board's last reauthorization bill. The Big Game Commercial Services Board regulates the activities of professionals that provide guide, guide- outfitter, and transportation services to big game hunters. The board had a sunset review in 2018; Senate Bill 43 was introduced in 2019 to extend the board for five years. During deliberation on the bill, there was some frustration regarding the inability of the board to quickly take action to revoke the license of a Master Guide who had been convicted of criminal offenses. The board relayed that it had the ability to revoke the license, but the process had to be suspended during the criminal case, and the required investigation and due process was lengthy. A Master Guide license does not confer any additional hunting rights; it is an honorary designation given to Registered Guides who have demonstrated excellence over a long history in their profession. Legislators, members of the public, and clients expect those that use the title to be held to the highest standard. The Senate Finance committee added language that was intended to require revocation of a Master Guide license upon conviction in a court of law for criminal offenses related to the profession. This language was reviewed and approved by the full Senate, all subsequent committees, and the full House. Unfortunately, during the December BGCSB meeting, the language was reviewed by staff attorneys and there was concern that the statute could be construed to apply to any violation of the statute even late paperwork which was clearly not the legislative intent. The BGCSB undertook a lengthy process to determine how to capture the legislature's intent: holding Master Guides to the high standard their title conveys and requiring the revocation of licenses for egregious offenses that do not honor the profession. Senate Bill 134 is the result of that work and would require revocation of a Master Guide license after conviction of an offense where the offender serves more than one day in jail or a $1,500 or greater fine is imposed. It also conforms the qualifications for a Master Guide license to these standards and also requires that the guide has not had a similar license revoked within the past five years. I would appreciate your support of this bill that clarifies the statute and ensures it works as the legislature intended. MS. LUCKY summarized that SB 134 treats the narrow class of egregious offenses for which a master guide license must be revoked. The board proposed the language to meet legislative intent and mirror existing statute to ensure it is interpreted correctly. 3:36:03 PM SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee meeting. 3:38:15 PM SENATOR STEVENS asked what offenses require the board to revoke a master guide license. MS. LUCKY replied it would apply to offenses where a person was imprisoned for more than one day or an unsuspended fine of more than $1,500 was imposed. She said the board created those standards after a review of the cases that came before the board and the disciplinary actions it imposed. She directed attention to the minutes of the Big Game Services Board teleconference held February 20, [2020] in the bill packets. The relevant data is on page 9 of the 9-page document. It shows the board considered six master guide-outfitter violations [since the sunset audit in 2018]. 3:40:01 PM SENATOR VON IMHOF interjected the table is outlined in green. MS. LUCKY continued to detail the examples. 3:40:18 PM At ease to help members find the table in their bill packets. 3:40:34 PM CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and asked for a better description of the graph because the members' copies were black and white. MS. LUCKY restated that the relevant data is on page 9 of the 9- page document. It enumerates six master guide-outfitter violations the board considered prior to the statutory change in 2019. Violations one and four met the threshold for revocation after the bill was enacted. SB 134 would require revocations for these types of offenses, she said. 3:42:00 PM SENATOR STEVENS summarized that revocations apply only to specific hunting violations. MS. LUCKY answered that is correct. She continued, "At this time, the language that was in Senate Bill 43 was interpreted to apply to any violations and that is what we are trying to fix. And what this bill would do is say that the fine imposed would have to be more than $1,500 or if the person spent a day in jail. Those were the two conditions under which a Master Guide [license] would be required to be revoked." 3:42:44 PM SENATOR STEVENS asked for confirmation that a master guide who received a $1500 fine or spent time in jail for something that was unrelated to hunting would not be affected by this bill. MS. LUCKY answered that is correct; she directed attention to the language on page 2, lines 19-20 of the bill that clearly states this is "related to hunting or the provision of big game hunting or transportation services." 3:43:24 PM SENATOR KIEHL referenced the eligibility provision in paragraph (4) of Section 1 and asked why the lookback for hunting violations was changed from 15 years preceding the date of the application to 5 years. MS. LUCKY answered that Section 1 relating to eligibility for a master guide license was changed to conform to Section 2 that has the "shall revoke" language. 3:44:12 PM CHAIR REVAK requested the sectional analysis. MS. LUCKY presented the following sectional analysis for SB 134: Sec. 1: Amends AS 08.54.610(b), which outlines the requirements to obtain a master guide-outfitter license, to limit the violations that would make a person ineligible to receive a license. Specifically, the amendment limits the look back period to five years and would only apply after conviction for an offense where the person was imprisoned for more than one day or there was a fine of more than $1,500 imposed. It also prohibits granting a master guide- outfitter license to an individual that has had a hunting, guiding, outfitting, transporter or similar license revoked in another jurisdiction. Sec. 2: Amends AS 08.54.710(k), which requires revocation of a master guide-outfitter license in certain circumstances, to limit the violations that would require revocation, similar to the language in section one, to an offense for which a person is imprisoned for more than one day or a fine of more than $1,500 is imposed. MS. LUCKY advised that one of the board's guiding principles was to conform AS 08.54.610(b) to existing statute. She directed attention to the document in the bill packets that shows the statute relating to eligibility for licenses has a five-year lookback. She noted the board suggested this language. 3:46:22 PM SENATOR BISHOP asked if the statute had something similar to a "Three strikes and you're out" provision. MS. LUCKY said she believes that it would be the five-year lookback, but she would defer to the board for confirmation. 3:46:56 PM CHAIR REVAK offered his understanding that somebody who has a qualifying violation has "a five-year timeout from being able to receive a guide license." He asked if that was correct. MS. LUCKY answered this would apply to individuals who are otherwise eligible to hold a master guide license, but it was correct that the lookback for guide-outfitter violations would be five years. CHAIR REVAK responded, "So if you got one of these violations, you wouldn't be able to receive a guide license for another five years." MS. LUCKY answered, "That is correct Mr. Chairman, but I did want to point out that you would also still have to meet all of the other requirements for the master guide license. But this would disqualify you for at least a period of five years." 3:48:03 PM CHAIR REVAK repeated, "At least." He noted Renee Hoffard was available for questions. SENATOR BISHOP asked if there was a limit to the number of times a guide could have their license revoked and reinstated after five years. 3:48:40 PM RENEE HOFFARD, Executive Administrator, Big Game Commercial Services Board, Juneau, Alaska, referenced subsection (l) that is not being amended and read the following: Sec. 08.54.710. Discipline of guides and transporters.  (l) The board may issue a registered guide-outfitter license to a person whose master guide-outfitter license is revoked under (k) of this section. She highlighted the provision that says to qualify for a master guide license, the applicant must be a registered guide for 15 of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of the application. If the offense is egregious enough, the board, in consultation with the Department of Law, may choose to not issue the registered guide license. CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Lucky if she had anything to add. 3:50:44 PM MS. LUCKY noted the concern in the testimony the committee received about "may" versus "shall." She said everybody agreed the language needed to be amended but the opinions varied on how to do that. Some people want the board to have discretion to revoke a master guide license for certain violations, but the board suggested narrowing the scope to just the most egregious offenses and making the revocation mandatory. 3:51:57 PM MS. LUCKY said the second issue relates to the effective date. The hunting season is underway and there is some concern that without an immediate effective date a small violation could result in a guide having their license revoked for five years. Self-reporting of small violations is common and that is jeopardized by the current interpretation that all violations result in license revocation. MS. LUCKY said the sponsor has an amendment for an effective date that is retroactive to the date Senate Bill 43 was enacted. This makes the law consistent, and it clarifies the legislature's understanding and intention when it passed Senate Bill 43 in September 2019. 3:54:06 PM CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 134; finding none, he closed public testimony. CHAIR REVAK asked if there were amendments. 3:54:32 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to SB 134. OFFERED IN THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE BY SENATOR VON IMHOF TO: SB 134 (32-LS06096\I) This is a conceptual amendment. Legislative Legal is directed to make any changes or deletions to the suggest language, including technical, conforming, or bill title changes, in order accomplish the intent. INTENT OF AMENDMENT: Add an effective date to SB 134 to match the effective date of the enactment of AS 08.54.710(k) by Senate Bill 43 in 2019 (CHAPTER 26 SLA 19). 3:54:43 PM CHAIR REVAK found no objection and announced Conceptual Amendment 1 to SB 134 passed. 3:54:51 PM At ease. 3:56:37 PM CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and asked the will of the committee. 3:56:49 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SB 134, work order 32-LS0696\I, as conceptually amended, from committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). He directed Legislative Legal to make changes or deletions to the conceptual amendment to accomplish the intent. 3:57:20 PM CHAIR REVAK found no objection and CSSB 134(RES) was reported from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.