05/08/2025 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB40 | |
| HB146 | |
| HB170 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2025
3:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair
Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Ky Holland
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 40
"An Act establishing the period between September 15 and October
15 of each year as Hispanic Heritage Month."
- MOVED SB 40 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act prohibiting public employers from disclosing certain
public employee personal information; making disclosure of
certain public employee personal information an unfair labor
practice; and creating an exception to the Public Records Act
for certain public employee personal information."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 170
"An Act relating to a failure to report a violent crime."
- MOVED HB 170 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act relating to specie as legal tender in the state; and
relating to borough and city sales and use taxes on specie."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund; relating to
permanent fund dividends; relating to the use of state income
from mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds,
federal mineral revenue sharing payments, and bonuses from
mineral leases; relating to contributions from permanent fund
dividends to the general and permanent funds; and providing for
an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 40
SHORT TITLE: HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GRAY-JACKSON
01/22/25 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/17/25
01/22/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (S) STA
02/25/25 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/25 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/25 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/25 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/25 (S) Moved SB 40 Out of Committee
03/04/25 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/25 (S) STA RPT 5DP
03/05/25 (S) DP: KAWASAKI, WIELECHOWSKI, GRAY-
JACKSON, BJORKMAN, YUNDT
04/14/25 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/14/25 (S) VERSION: SB 40
04/15/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/25 (H) STA
05/06/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 146
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERSONAL INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HALL
03/21/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/25 (H) STA, L&C
03/24/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/24/25 (H) <Pending Referral>
05/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 170
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING VIOLENT CRIMES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) BURKE
04/02/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/02/25 (H) STA, JUD
04/29/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/07/25 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: SPECIE AS LEGAL TENDER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCABE
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) STA, FIN
04/15/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/29/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented SB 40.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN HALL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 146.
HEIDI DRYGAS, Executive Director
Alaska State Employees Association/American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 146.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBYN NIAYUK BURKE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 170.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 170.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 170.
LAWRENCE HILTON, General Counsel
United Precious Metals Association
Alpine, Utah
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and responded to
questions during the hearing on HB 1.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:23:27 PM
CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:23 p.m. Representatives McCabe,
Vance, Moore, Himschoot, and Carrick were present at the call to
order. Representatives Story and Holland arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
SB 40-HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
3:24:50 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 40, "An Act establishing the period between
September 15 and October 15 of each year as Hispanic Heritage
Month."
3:25:10 PM
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, as prime sponsor, reintroduced SB 40.
She gave an introduction and overview of the bill in Spanish.
She told the committee that by passing this legislation and
recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month, it would send a clear
message that Alaska values diversity, inclusivity, and the
recognition of the many communities that contribute to our
shared success. She urged support for the legislation.
3:26:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE apologized for missing previous bill
discussions and asked whether Senator Elvi could point to any
notable Alaska Hispanics that she wanted to highlight with the
establishment of a Hispanic Heritage Month.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON responded that she believed every citizen
in Alaska with a Hispanic background was notable.
3:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that his chief of staff's family
was of Mexican descent and was personally notable to him.
3:27:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to report SB [40] out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
3:27:43 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:27 p.m.
CHAIR CARRICK noted that the motion would need to be restated
[to correct the bill number in the motion].
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to report SB 40 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 40 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
3:28:32 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:28 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.
HB 146-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERSONAL INFORMATION
3:31:18 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act prohibiting public employers from
disclosing certain public employee personal information; making
disclosure of certain public employee personal information an
unfair labor practice; and creating an exception to the Public
Records Act for certain public employee personal information."
3:32:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN HALL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 146. She began by paraphrasing part of
the sponsor statement [included in the committee file], which
read in its entirety as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A Right to Privacy is guaranteed in Alaska's
Constitution, established in 1972 by a vote of the
people. Since then, this right has been enumerated
into many aspects of Alaskans' daily lives. Simply
put, the Constitution protects our personal
information and the discretion required to ensure
individual privacy is not a courtesy but an
expectation.
House Bill 146 clarifies that in the course of state
employment, certain personal information home
address, personal email, personal phone number,
payroll deduction history, union status, and date of
birth, among other details will also be privileged
under state law.
This is a natural extension of disclosure prohibitions
contained in the State Personnel Act, which does not
specify things such as email addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL began a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee file], with an introduction of the
goals of HB 146. She said that the purpose and scope of HB 146
is to prohibit the disclosure of public employee information.
The proposed legislation would expand Title 23 and would
identify the release of personal data as an unfair labor
practice. Furthermore, it would amend Alaska Statute (AS)
40.25.120 by adding a conforming change to the Public Records
Statute that would mirror AS 23.40.110. This would clarify that
releasing personal information to the public would violate
privacy rights. Furthermore, it would prohibit employers from
releasing private information, regardless of union membership.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL said that in 1972 the Alaska Department of
Public Safety (DPS) began developing the Alaska Justice
Information System (AJIS), a computer database intended to log
Alaska's criminal history. She said that some legislators
including Terry Miller believed that this system would violate
Alaskans' privacy. She said to think along the lines of "Big
Brother." She said that Terry Miller began working with
Attorney General John Havelock to mitigate this concern. She
said that the document on the committee screens was an excerpt
from the AJIS updated master plan, which she noted could also be
found online. She explained the use of AJIS and said that it
was explicitly designed to provide interagency communication.
She said that much like what Alaskans are concerned with today,
legislators in 1972 were afraid that AJIS would be misused and
violate Alaskans privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL said that in 1972, the legislators began
drafting a constitutional amendment with Attorney General John
Havelock. In May of that year, Senate Joint Resolution 68 was
introduced, which recognized Alaskans' right to privacy. She
said the resolution passed with a vote of 39-1 in the State
House of Representatives and 16-2 in the State Senate. In
August 1972, this issue also appeared before the voters, and a
constitutional amendment was adopted with 86 percent support.
After the vote, Article 22 was adopted into the Alaska State
Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL remarked that other states have made similar
constitutional provisions. These include Arizona, California,
Florida, Hawai'i, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina,
Washington, and New Hampshire. She told the committee that this
information was included in the bill file as a memorandum
("memo") from Legislative Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL redirected attention to the bill of
discussion, HB 146. She pointed out to committee members
examples of mailers sent to public employees, which she
described as privacy violations. She remarked that some of the
mailers request personal information as an opt-out option, and
the senders often pretend to be affiliated with the Alaska State
Employees Association (ASEA) or other organizations. She
reiterated that public employees should expect their personal
contact information to be protected. She said that much has
changed since the constitutional amendment was passed in 1972.
She pointed out to the committee additional examples of
information that have been sent to public employees and the
misleading steps that mailing organizations take. In closing,
she said that Alaskans have a strong constitutional right to
privacy, but public employees are a group that has been
overlooked. She said that the legislature can protect public
employees with HB 146.
3:38:21 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
3:38:38 PM
HEIDI DRYGAS, Executive Director, Alaska State Employees
Association/American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (ASEA/AFSCME), began invited testimony on HB 146 by
thanking Representative Hall for carrying the legislation. She
said that protecting employees' privacy is a safety and security
issue and public employees deserve the same right to personal
privacy and safety as any other Alaskan. She said that
releasing personal details such as home addresses, phone numbers
or email addresses can put public workers at risk of harassment,
identity theft, or worse. She said that employees in sensitive
roles such as law enforcement, child welfare, or even revenue
collection can face retaliation or threats if personal
information is too easily accessible.
MS. DRYGAS said that employee information disclosures revealed
trends among public employees and identified interest groups
that have become targets of unsolicited commercial and political
campaigns. She said that the State of Alaska (SOA) employs more
than 16,000 people and even limited disclosures can reveal a
significant amount of personal information. Once this
information is released, SOA has no control over how employee
details are further distributed. She said that when the state
discloses private employee details, it exposes employees to risk
of spammers and manipulators.
MS. DRYGAS explained that since the Janus vs. American Federal
of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Supreme Court
decision on June 27, 2018, union membership for public employees
has been an elective decision. She remarked that SOA
facilitates misinformation and harassment aimed at union
members. She said that these concerns are not limited to union
membership or the lack thereof. Personal employee contact
information is subject to disclosure to any number of outside
third-party organizations. She said that the proposed
legislation would balance transparency with constitutional
privacy protections. It would not eliminate public transparency
around job titles, salaries or employment status; it simply
would limit the release of personal details that are not
necessary for government oversight. She said that the proposed
legislation is a reasonable and targeted approach to protect
public sector workers. The bill would also support recruitment
and retention in public service at a time when Alaska is facing
challenges retaining public workers. She said that the focus
should be on making appeals to employees. Knowing that their
personal details are protected would build trust in the
workplace. She said this is especially important in rural
departments.
3:42:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Ms. Drygas why this was a
legislative push rather than being part of a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) where he opined it belongs.
MS. DRYGAS responded that this was a good question and there was
some language in statute about being able to provide information
to the bargaining representative, but she felt that it makes the
most sense to have this in statute because not all public
employees are represented by a union. She said that the
legislation is about asserting privacy rights, which is not
necessarily in the purview of collective bargaining. She said
that enforcing privacy rights would be enforcing the rights of
the Alaska Constitution and would clarify in statute that the
right to privacy includes ensuring personal emails, phone
numbers, and addresses are not part of a broad information
request by third-party organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked for clarification of what sets
public employee unions apart from private sector unions. He
said that when he negotiated on behalf of his company, they had
put this in the CBA. He asked the reason for placing this
legislation in statute for just public sector employees and not
the private sector as well, as their rights to privacy remain
worth consideration. He said the privacy agreements could be
placed in the Union CBA and not state law.
MS. DRYGAS responded that public employees were in a unique
position, but she certainly supports protecting the privacy
rights of all employees, union or not. She explained that the
difference in being a public employee is that records are
subject to the Alaska Public Records Act, and this requires
certain disclosures when receiving information requests, unlike
private employees. She reiterated the importance of
understanding that the bill covers non-unionized public
employees as well. She reported that some public employees were
getting unnecessary emails, political information and flyers.
She said the union works hard to differentiate between
collective bargaining and political action, which is handled by
the organization's political action committee (PAC). She said
the union has members of all political stripes and efforts are
made to keep these things separate. She remarked that just
recently one of the union members in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) Valley received an e-mail from a Pro-Palestinian group and
was unaware of how they were put on e-mail lists. She
reiterated that all the proposed legislation would do is keep
certain information private to keep these types of occurrences
from happening.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that the state's voter rolls have
addresses on them that could be cross-referenced for gathering
information regarding employees. He reaffirmed that the
proposed legislation would be better accomplished in a CBA
rather than under law. He believed that there were around
22,000 total state employees and asked if that was an accurate
figure.
MS. DRYGAS responded that she believed it was around 16,000
employees and Representative McCabe's figure may have included
university affiliates and others not captured by her figure.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reiterated that this concern would be
better addressed in CBA.
3:48:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he was surprised to see this
bill because given his experience working in the private sector,
private employers never release this type of information. He
said it was easy to assume that all employers had some level of
standardization with regard to protecting employee privacy. He
said he was shocked to hear that SOA employees have this easily
accessible information. He acknowledged that there are many
ways to find information but legal obligations to release
information were something new to him and he appreciated the
bill intent. He mentioned his previous university training to
maintain privacy for students and faculty.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the proposed legislation
would change information that was accessible with the SOA's
workplace directory. Furthermore, he asked whether there had
been considerations for contracted employees working on behalf
of SOA.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that to her understanding, the
state employee directory would remain public. She added that
when it comes to contractors, her understanding was when looking
Section 1, subsection (a) of the proposed legislation, on page
1, line [7], the language read that "a public employer or an
agent of a public employer may not". She interpreted this
language to include contractors.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked about personal contractors that may
be using personal e-mails and phone numbers when doing
contracted work for SOA. He was unsure how private information
would be handled in these instances.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that to her understanding, every
department operates differently, and contractors and
subcontractors may be different on a case-by-case basis. She
said that she could follow up with a more concise answer.
3:53:34 PM
MS. DRYGAS added that she had experience interfacing with the
employee directory and, to her knowledge, she had never seen a
contractor listed in the directory. She said that the employee
directory is helpful for navigating departmental personnel
across the state. She said that she navigates the directory
frequently and reiterated that she had not seen contractors
listed. She explained that contractors were not public
employees and were subject to different requirements.
MS. DRYGAS confirmed that there are many ways to get private
information as Representative McCabe had mentioned, but she did
not believe that one of those ways to get information should be
with a request for information to the State of Alaska, which
requires compliance. She did not know whether contractors were
subject to the same kind of disclosures, but the name of the
contractor would be public.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he would appreciate some work
looking into this and that this could have implications. He
said an agency might hire contractors for SOA related work. He
said the question would be whether the contractor's contact can
be listed if the contact information was also personal
information. He said that the state uses contractors a lot
these days and it would be a potential issue that should be
addressed. He asked how the Federal Government, as an employer,
handles this type of personal information for Federal employees.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she did not know how the
Federal Government handles employee information but could
investigate it and follow up. She said that within her district
she has gone to multiple community council meetings that often
have state contractors present. She said that some of these
contractors give work e-mails as contact information. She
talked about the Fish Creek Trail Connection Project as an
example of contracted work. She said in her experience, she has
seen only work e-mails associated with contractors - not
personal information.
3:57:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether legislators were
technically considered employees of SOA.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that legislators were considered
employees of SOA.
3:58:23 PM
CHAIR CARRICK affirmed Representative McCabe's comments about
the ease of gathering information. She remarked that it could
even include Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) reports.
3:59:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that private information
disclosures due to a condition of employment "did not sit well
with her."
3:59:34 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked how common employee privacy protection
policies were in the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she did not know the answer
but could follow up with a response.
MS. DRYGAS explained that the private sector was different due
to differences in disclosure requirements defined by AS.
4:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE said that private information about
legislators was a different scenario than most SOA employees due
to APOC disclosures. She asked Representative Hall what the
rationale was to keep payroll deduction histories and union
status private.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that language in Section 7 of HB
146, on page 2, line 26, states: "any information about an
employee's charitable payroll deductions, except to the
receiving charity". She said Ms. Drygas could better speak to
the reason for union status privacy.
MS. DRYGAS added that most of Alaska's public employees feel
that their associations with various organizations are private
matters unless they chose to share them. She said it's much
like making donations to various charities. She said that most
people who make charitable donations consider them private. She
gave examples of the National Rifle Association (NRA) or even
the Sierra Club as associations that often remain private. She
said that many employees do not want to share potentially
partisan associations and said that there is something
fundamental about Alaskans' belief in privacy rights.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE commented that she thought that being
public employees, and paid with public funds, certain pieces of
information should be available to the public.
4:05:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE explained that AS 39.25.080 already
exempts all the public employee records, except for name and
position, and there are very few exemptions. He said it
suggests that the state is already not supposed to disclose this
type of private information. He asked whether this was a
correct assumption.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL noted that there is a committee substitute
(CS) that was going to be introduced that conforms to current
AS.
4:06:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Representative Hall, given that the
bill is about public employees, why there wasn't someone who
represents all public employees available to speak to the
proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she would be happy to find
people who can speak to the proposed legislation in future
committee hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that what she heard in the testimony
was that this proposed legislation is about the Janus vs. AFSCME
U.S. Supreme Court Case. She remarked that the hearing was
unexpected for her and having this be about all public employees
without someone who represented public employees made
discussions feel one-sided. She was struggling to see the
instances of how people have this information so readily
available. She wanted to find out what was done currently to
protect employees' information. She asked how it may impact the
Supreme Court ruling.
MS. DRYGAS explained that the proposed legislation had nothing
to do with implementing Janus vs. AFSCME rulings. She talked
about the ability of outside, third-party organizations to
target members of union membership as a "by-product" of the
case. She said that it's not anything related to the ruling.
She did not think the information was so readily available and
highlighted information request requirements. She talked about
the Alaska Public Records Act and discussed the dynamics
associated with records requests. She said that the legislation
was about keeping personal information private when issued these
requests.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that during the
presentation, Ms. Drygas had specifically said the State of
Alaska put out "propaganda" about the Janus vs. AFSCME ruling
and the proposed bill was specifically trying to counter the
administration's wishes with regards to implementing the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision. She said that it seemed to her that
the bill was really about that decision.
4:10:49 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 146 was held over.
HB 170-REPORTING VIOLENT CRIMES
4:11:33 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 170, "An Act relating to a failure to report a
violent crime."
4:12:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROBYN NIAYUK BURKE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, reintroduced HB 170. She explained that HB 170
would seek to increase the penalties for failing to report
violent crimes committed against adults. The proposed
legislation would ensure accountability and justice for those
silent in the face of violence. She remarked that the bill is
part of an ongoing commitment to address the crisis of Missing
and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP). She asked for bill
support not only to honor Kathleen Joe Henry but for all those
who demand justice and accountability.
4:13:11 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:13 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.
4:15:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 170,
labeled 34-LS0638\N.3, C. Radford, 5/5/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 11.56.767(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person, other than the victim, commits the
offense of failure to report a violent crime committed
against an adult if the person, under circumstances
not requiring the person to report as required by
AS 11.56.765,
(1) witnesses what the person knows or
reasonably should know is
(A) the murder or attempted murder of a
person by another;
(B) the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping
of a person by another; [OR]
(C) the sexual penetration or attempted
sexual penetration by another
(i) of a person without consent of the
person;
(ii) of a person who is mentally incapable;
(iii) of a person who is incapacitated; or
(iv) of a person who is unaware that a
sexual act is being committed;
(D) human trafficking in the first degree
or attempted human trafficking in the first degree; or
(E) sex trafficking in the first degree or
attempted sex trafficking in the first degree; and
(2) does not, as soon as reasonably
practicable, report that crime to a peace officer or
law enforcement agency."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, line 8:
Following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "AS 11.56.767(a), as amended by sec. 1 of
this Act, and"
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 2"
Delete "applies"
Insert "apply"
CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the proposed amendment would
add human and sex trafficking in the first degree to the list of
violent crimes that would require mandatory reporting. She said
that the bill should also include other egregious violent
crimes. She said that following discussions with the bill
sponsor, a first-degree classification was determined to keep
the bill "tight" and avoid any "gray areas." She remarked that
kidnapping was already listed in the proposed legislation and
human trafficking was part of it.
4:17:47 PM
CHAIR CARRICK noted that some individuals were available to help
facilitate questions.
4:18:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE thanked Representative Vance for offering
the amendment but stated that it was her hope that HB 170 would
be passed through the committee as a clean bill. She remarked
that there were many different iterations of the bill and given
discussions with stakeholders, community members, and affiliates
with the Senate Companion Bill, the intent is to retain the
current bill structure. She discussed stipulations associated
with mandatory reporting of human and sex trafficking. She
opposed the amendment but was grateful for the discussion.
4:20:01 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked Nancy Meade whether she could address
questions about current laws on sex and human trafficking. She
inquired about the legal classification of this type of crime
and whether it was classified as a violent crime.
4:20:49 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, responded that to her knowledge,
the statutes do not define "violent crime", but the committee
may want to hear from Ms. Schroeder for clarification.
4:21:11 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Central
Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that
"violent crime" is not defined in Alaska Statute (AS), however
the legislature has the ability to classify these definitions in
statute.
4:21:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Meade whether she could speak
to how many people would potentially be charged for failing to
report human or sex trafficking and what would constitute
witnessing a crime. She gave an example of walking through an
airport and said that there needed to be something to make a
compelling argument for what would constitute a non-reporting
witness.
MS. MEADE said that witnesses have a normal definition that one
may think, "to observe or see something" but the statute also
includes what a person "knows or reasonably should know". She
said that this would be the standard used by DOL. She gave an
example of a possible witness of human trafficking by an
employer as someone getting captured by this type of statutory
language. She said that it would be more appropriate for DOL to
explain the timing related to these types of charges.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT redirected her question and asked for
clarification regarding what constitutes a witness in some of
the cases regarding human and sex trafficking. She was unsure
about the definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that there should be
definitions.
4:24:31 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked whether Ms. Meade could help clarify the
definitions associated with human and sex trafficking.
MS. MEADE responded that human trafficking in the first degree
is defined under AS 11.41.360, [subsection (a)], which read as
follows:
Sec. 11.41.360. Human trafficking in the first
degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of human
trafficking in the first degree if the person compels
or induces another person to engage in sexual conduct,
adult entertainment, or labor in the state by force or
threat of force against any person, or by deception.
MS. MEADE explained the stipulations of inducing and remarked
that sex trafficking is confined to prostitution-type
situations. She explained that human trafficking and sex
trafficking are different. She said that previous attempts
have been made to change legal definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she wanted to know how much
this amendment would expand the proposed bill and how many more
people could be charged as witnesses.
CHAIR CARRICK remarked that Ms. Schroeder could address this
question.
4:26:18 PM
MS. SCHROEDER explained that the elements of the offense are
that someone witnesses, knows, or reasonably should know that
human or sex trafficking, or an attempt thereof, is occurring.
She said that the witness must "see" it and "know", and she
related the concept to the proposed amendment. She said there
is a definition in statute of knowing so the person would have
to be aware of the conduct and the circumstance. Knowledge is
established if the person is aware of a substantial probability
unless the person believes is did not. In this case, the state
would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person knew in the event charges were made. She could not say
how many people might get captured under the proposed amendment.
She said that based on the testimonies that have been given with
previous bills, there are attempts to change definitions for
this "insidious conduct." She said that often great efforts are
made to hide what is going on, and both investigations and
prosecutions are complex. She said that it is possible that
someone could witness this and not actually know what was being
witnessed. She said that a participant in prostitution could be
a technical witness and could be charged in conjunction with
other crimes.
4:28:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that this Amendment 1 would give a
prosecutor some extra tools to suggest that someone was a
witness to this type of crime. He gave a theoretical example of
trafficking people in a parking lot at gunpoint. He said that
prosecution could say that they thought someone was a witness
and if they withheld information there would be a penalty. He
asked Ms. Schroeder whether she thought this was an appropriate
characterization.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that it would be another tool, but she
suggested that cases would probably be egregious in nature where
prosecutors thought there may be a non-reporting witness, and
they knew what they were witnessing before any charges followed.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether Ms. Schoeder thought the
sideboards on this were sufficient to protect somebody from
being falsely accused.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that she could not speak to whether
someone would be accused of witnessing something. However, she
said that the "knowing" standard is a relatively high standard
and it should protect somebody from witnessing something without
knowing what it was. She discussed the mechanics of "knowing"
and proving it. She said that knowing would be a standard above
a simple suspicion.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE speculated that this would be a much
higher standard than "see something/say something."
MS. SCHROEDER responded that that was a correct assessment. She
added that someone would also need to "know" that they have a
duty to report, which adds an extra layer of complication to
investigations.
4:30:44 PM
CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1 to HB 170.
4:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected and asked Representative Burke for
clarification as to why she did not want to add Amendment 1 at
this time and what she had learned from previous discussions
about this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE responded that with various iterations of
the proposed bill, different levels of crime were considered.
She remarked that this was not an amendment she had previously
considered. She noted that this was the bill's first committee
and said that she wants to continue conversations with
stakeholders, constituents, community members, and the sponsor
of the companion bill in the Senate. She noted that the
proposed legislation still had referral to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee where it could have additional scrutiny and
amendments. She said it was her intent to move the bill without
amendments and conversations could take place in the next
committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained her objection.
4:32:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and McCabe
voted in favor of Amendment 1 to HB 170. Representatives
Holland, Story, Moore, Himschoot, and Carrick voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.
4:33:25 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said that she hoped that this amendment would get
added in the future committee of referral following additional
research and outreach. She appreciated the arguments regarding
the topic.
4:34:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Representative Burke for bringing
the bill forward. She said that when first looking at the
proposed legislation, it did not sit well with her. However,
after looking at existing statutory references, the [necessity
for adding] these egregious trafficking crimes was clear. She
commented that there are a lot of organizations that have been
fighting human trafficking in Alaska. She expressed intent to
work with Representative Burke to add mechanisms to address this
type of crime. She emphasized the desire to bring awareness to
Alaska's communities and make appropriate laws for the people.
4:36:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Ms. Schroeder for clarification
regarding how Alaska defines violent crime.
4:36:25 PM
MS. SCHROEDER responded that there is no statutory definition
for violent crime in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that she was trying to digest
what the words mean and how they apply to the proposed bill.
4:36:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE cited AS 11.56.767 [subsection (a),
paragraph (1)], which read as follows:
Sec. 11.56.767. Failure to report a violent crime
committed against an adult.
(a) A person, other than the victim, commits the
offense of failure to report a violent crime committed
against an adult if the person, under circumstances
not requiring the person to report as required by AS
11.56.765,
(1) witnesses what the person knows or reasonably
should know is
(A) the murder or attempted murder of a person by
another;
(B) the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of a
person by another; or
(C) the sexual penetration or attempted sexual
penetration by another
(i) of a person without consent of the
person;
(ii) of a person who is mentally incapable;
(iii) of a person who is incapacitated; or
(iv) of a person who is unaware that a
sexual act is being committed; and
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for additional clarification
regarding how these definitions would be interpreted.
CHAIR CARRICK commented that these were the interpretations
addressed by both Ms. Meade and Ms. Schroeder.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she was "blown away" that a
crime could be considered violent in one statute but not violent
in another statute.
CHAIR CARRICK asked Ms. Schroeder if she could clarify how
violent crime is utilized under AS.
4:38:43 PM
MS. SCHROEDER responded that it was not utilized often and when
used it appears in contexts like this. She said the offense
goes on to describe what is meant by the word "violent".
CHAIR CARRICK echoed Representative Himschoot's line of inquiry
concerning these nuances regarding violent crime classification.
4:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report HB 170 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 170 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
4:40:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:40 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
HB 1-SPECIE AS LEGAL TENDER
4:45:08 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to specie as legal tender
in the state; and relating to borough and city sales and use
taxes on specie."
4:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, as prime sponsor, reintroduced HB 1. He
said that he appreciates a second hearing on the proposed
legislation. He said that HB 1 is about constitutional fidelity
and financial freedom. It would recognize gold and silver as
legal tender in Alaska; this would be in alignment with Article
1 Section 10 of the United States (U.S.) Constitution. He said
that the proposed legislation would protect Alaskans' rights to
use "sound money." He said the legislation is about choice, not
mandates, and nobody would be required to use gold or silver,
but the legislation would affirm someone could. He noted that
testifiers were available to address any questions from the
committee.
4:47:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what consumer protections were in
place. She said that she wanted to ensure that consumers can
understand what they are getting and buying. She remarked that
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED) reported that the State of Alaska (SOA) did not accept
cryptocurrencies as a valid form of payment for any debts or
obligations. She said that cryptocurrencies must first be
converted to United States Dollars (USD). She asked how much
notice would need to be given to consumers.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that HB 1 does not pertain to
cryptocurrency but pertains to physical gold and other precious
metals. He said that the consumer protections would be the same
as with a USD. He said it falls to the consumer to make
purchases from a vendor that is reputable. He said that
Goldbacks had military level anti-counterfeit features built in.
He said that online testimony could better address consumer
protection.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that when looking at specie, her
understanding was that there were different values for the
specie and it seemed to her that much like the USD, it
fluctuates. She wondered how much education the public would
need to understand these types of fluctuations. She asked for
clarification about this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that U.S. Citizens were [accustomed
to] a single currency. He said that some countries might use
four or even five types of currency with different values, which
requires negotiated rates. He said that when he went to Hong
Kong, he negotiated between USD and Hong Kong Dollars. He said
that he accepts or declines what the stated value is regarding a
set price. He said that with HB 1, the price would be based on
daily spot price of the precious metal. He said a merchant that
accepted Goldbacks may have an application ("app"), a device, or
even a set price. He said he had a conversation about this with
Mr. Diaz that morning. Additionally, he said Mr. Hilton may be
able to further speak about the issue.
4:52:25 PM
LAWRENCE HILTON, General Counsel, United Precious Metals
Association, proffered that Federal Statute requires the
Treasurer of the United States to maintain equal purchasing
power among all forms of the USD. However, there are five
different kinds of dollars, each with different purchasing
power. He said the Federal Government has not fulfilled its
obligation to maintain parity. It has prompted states to step
in and assert that these dollars are not equivalent. He said
these types of dollars can include the Gold Dollar, Silver
Dollar, Platinum Dollar, and Paper Dollar Federal Reserve Note.
He said each has different purchasing power due to Federal
Government's failure to uphold equal purchasing power.
MR. HILTON, regarding the Goldback, said that it is a negotiable
instrument redeemable for USD. What makes the Goldback unique
th
is its physical composition; it contains as little as 1/2000 of
an ounce of gold, making it usable in everyday transactions. He
said that thousands of merchants across the country accept
Goldbacks for goods and services.
MR. HILTON explained that Goldbacks include over a dozen
security features to prevent counterfeit attempts. He said apps
are available to determine value and authenticity as well.
4:55:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether any changes were needed to HB
1 to address education and consumer protection. She further
inquired whether the proposed bill contained protection
mechanisms.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that he believes that the
proposed legislation had all the consumer protection of any
other piece of this type of legislation. He said that he
believes that there were many things that were easier to
counterfeit than Goldbacks, especially given the testimony
regarding counterfeit measures. He said that someone who was
educated and wanted to buy a Goldback would likely use apps and
tools to determine pricing. He explained that a reputable
seller is the best safeguard.
4:56:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that she was specifically looking at
language beginning on page 3, line 9, of the bill, regarding a
prospective Joint Legislative Budget & Audit Committee study.
4:57:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND shared that recently while at Costco, he
noticed someone selling gold bars, specifically bullion. He
commented that generally Costco is a reputable place to make
purchases and seeing gold for sale caught his attention given
previous bill discussions. He added that gold was also
available for purchase from the Costco and Amazon websites. He
remarked that he found that gold is a commonly traded form of
value, much like how one might buy postage stamps at Costco. He
clarified that he was speaking to gold in legal tender form, not
jewelry or collectibles.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that what intrigued him the most was
learning about the availability of gold in this type of format.
He asked at what point the purchase of gold as legal tender
would get exempted from sales tax and noted the distinctions
between gold purchased as tender as opposed to artistic,
historic, or other value-based formats. He said that he saw
some gold items resembling gold bills or cards and remarked on
the formatting.
4:59:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked that given his time working as a
legislator, this bill has been the most fun. He said that if
someone went to a coin store and bought a pre-1950 Morgan Silver
Dollar valued at $2,000-$3,000, then a sales tax would be
expected. But if someone were to walk into a 7-Eleven
convenience store and purchase one out of the till and offer a
dollar bill in exchange, that would be an informal transaction.
He emphasized the distinction of items being used for money and
items being used for collection.
5:01:44 PM
CHAIR CARRICK shared Representative Story's concerns regarding
consumer protection. She asked whether HB 1 would add a layer
of consumer protection that is not already in place for people
currently making transactions with these types of items. She
inquired that when something is classified as legal tender in a
state, whether there would be any additional protection laws.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that he was not sure whether
there is any kind of consumer protection for a $100 bill. He
said that if one is familiar with Goldbacks, which would be
assumed if a merchant accepts them, then there would be ways to
tell whether it was authentic. When using a $100 bill, one
could use a brown pen, he noted; however, most people don't
carry a brown pen around. He reiterated that he believed
Goldbacks have more consumer protections built in than do $100
dollar bills.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE talked about the protections regarding the
Costco gold bars; the protection was that it came from a
reputable seller and it likely had the required qualifiers.
CHAIR CARRICK said that a dollar right now, or forever stamp,
would hold the same inherent value, regardless of when it would
be used. She talked about price fluctuations and whether this
would be a concern and how to avoid any potential lawsuits due
to the new type of legal tender.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that he did not believe that
this was a concern at all; he said it's no more of a concern
than dollar bills. He speculated that what Chair Carrick may be
getting at is whether the value of the Goldback goes down. He
said that traditionally, gold has continued to track commodity
prices in a fashion that the USD has not. He affirmed that
market prices fluctuate and gave an example of purchases with a
Goldback and USD in an environment of high inflation.
5:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that when finally doing a
base student allocation (BSA) increase, maybe it could be issued
in Goldbacks. She questioned what problem would be solved by HB
1.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that the problem being solved is
allowing a mid-level investor, or someone who cannot afford to
buy a $3,400, one-ounce gold coin, the ability to slowly
accumulate Goldbacks. He spoke about investment growth given
the opportunity to store precious metals as a value-holding
agent. He said that it would be a means to fight inflation and
a fiat currency. He talked about future repository
opportunities to hedge against inflation of the USD. He
described issues with the absence of a gold standard and the
various countries and states that are making similar
initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that if someone wanted to
accumulate money slowly, Sound Money could be difficult due to a
$200 membership fee.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that one doesn't need to be a
member to buy a Goldback.
5:08:45 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 1 was held over.
5:10:17 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:10
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 146 Sponsor Statement 4.10.2025.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Ver I.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Ver I Sectional Analysis 4.10.2025.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Rep Hall Presentation.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Backup Leg Research Origins of Alaska’s Constitutional Right to Privacy.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 170 Written Testimony Rec'd 5-7-25.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 1 Written Testimony Rec'd 4-29-25.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 170 Amendment #1 HSTA.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 1 DCRA Response to HSTA 5.7.25.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 146 Fiscal Note DOLWD-ALRA-05-02-25.pdf |
HSTA 5/8/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 146 |