Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
05/08/2025 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB40 | |
| HB146 | |
| HB170 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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.
| 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 |