04/03/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB118 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB168 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2018
3:48 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to the disclosure of personal information."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 96(FIN)
"An Act amending the calculation of adjusted gross income for
purposes of the tax on gambling activities aboard large
passenger vessels; repealing a provision allowing an
investigation expense under the Alaska Small Loans Act to be in
place of a fee required under the Alaska Business License Act;
repealing the amount that may be deducted from the tobacco
excise tax to cover the expense of accounting and filing for the
monthly tax return; repealing the discount on cigarette tax
stamps provided as compensation for affixing the stamps to
packages; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by the
legislature; and relating to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee."
- MOVED HB 168 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.
- MOVED HCR 10 OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20(JUD)
"An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing
elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages."
- MOVED CSHB 20(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 152(STA)
"An Act relating to the organized militia; and relating to the
authority of the adjutant general."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 118
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
04/24/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/24/17 (S) STA, L&C
04/03/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 96
SHORT TITLE: TAXES; DEDUCTIONS; FEES; TAX STAMP DISCOUNT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON
02/01/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/17 (H) FIN
02/21/18 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS ROOM 519
02/21/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/18 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/27/18 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS ROOM 519
02/27/18 (H) Moved CSHB 96(FIN) Out of Committee
02/27/18 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/28/18 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 11DP
02/28/18 (H) DP: GARA, WILSON, KAWASAKI, THOMPSON,
PRUITT, ORTIZ, GUTTENBERG, GRENN,
TILTON,
02/28/18 (H) SEATON, FOSTER
03/05/18 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/05/18 (H) VERSION: CSHB 96(FIN)
03/07/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/18 (S) STA, FIN
04/03/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 168
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/18 (H) Moved HB 168 Out of Committee
02/08/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/18 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/09/18 (H) DP: BIRCH, KNOPP, LEDOUX, WOOL,
JOHNSON, KREISS-TOMKINS
02/09/18 (H) NR: TUCK
03/01/18 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS ROOM 519
03/01/18 (H) Moved HB 168 Out of Committee
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/02/18 (H) FIN RPT 7DP 1DNP 2NR
03/02/18 (H) DP: GARA, WILSON, THOMPSON, PRUITT,
TILTON, SEATON, FOSTER
03/02/18 (H) DNP: KAWASAKI
03/02/18 (H) NR: ORTIZ, GRENN
03/14/18 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/14/18 (H) VERSION: HB 168
03/16/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/18 (S) STA
04/03/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/18 (H) Moved HCR 10 Out of Committee
02/08/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/18 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/09/18 (H) DP: BIRCH, KNOPP, LEDOUX, WOOL,
JOHNSON, KREISS-TOMKINS
02/09/18 (H) NR: TUCK
03/01/18 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS ROOM 519
03/01/18 (H) Moved HCR 10 Out of Committee
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/02/18 (H) FIN RPT 7DP 1DNP 2NR
03/02/18 (H) DP: GARA, WILSON, THOMPSON, PRUITT,
TILTON, SEATON, FOSTER
03/02/18 (H) DNP: KAWASAKI
03/02/18 (H) NR: ORTIZ, GRENN
03/19/18 (H) BEFORE HOUSE IN SECOND READING
03/19/18 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/19/18 (H) VERSION: HCR 10
03/21/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/18 (S) STA
04/03/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Moved CSHB 20(STA) Out of Committee
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/22/17 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2DNP
02/22/17 (H) DP: TUCK, KNOPP, JOSEPHSON, KREISS-
TOMKINS
02/22/17 (H) DNP: JOHNSON, BIRCH
03/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/17 (H) Moved CSHB 20(JUD) Out of Committee
03/08/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 1NR 2AM
03/15/17 (H) DP: KOPP, KREISS-TOMKINS, LEDOUX,
CLAMAN
03/15/17 (H) NR: FANSLER
03/15/17 (H) AM: EASTMAN, REINBOLD
02/19/18 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/19/18 (H) VERSION: CSHB 20(JUD)
02/21/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (S) STA, JUD
04/03/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 118, provided an overview.
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff
Senator Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis on SB 118.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 96, provided an overview.
FORREST WOLFE, Staff
Representative Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of HB 96.
KEN ALPER, Director
Tax Division
Alaska Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding HB 96.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 168, provided an overview.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of HB 168.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 20, provided an overview.
SARA PERMAN, Staff
Representative Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of HB 20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:48:11 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:48 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wilson, Egan, Coghill, and Chair Meyer.
SB 118-DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION
3:48:45 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of Senate Bill 118 (SB
118).
3:48:50 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 118, provided an overview as follows:
This bill stems from our constitutional obligation in
Article I, Section 22, the constitution says, "The
right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall
not be infringed, the Legislature shall implement this
by statute." This statute is seeking to protect
personal information that internet websites collect
about us on a daily basis. The internet has
fundamentally changed our world but virtually every
website you click on, every product that you buy,
every medical illness you research, every political
article you research, every religious site you visit
is being recorded, collected and sold. There is little
to stop data-brokers from using the information they
gather from us in whatever way they please.
There is a gentleman named Jeff Chester, he's a
privacy advocate and director for the Center for
Digital Democracy (CDD), and I think he summed it up
very well, he said, "Because there are no online
privacy laws in the United States, there's no stop
sign, there's no slow sign, there's no crossing guard,
the message is anything goes." We've seen that in
recent months with the Facebook-Cambridge Analytical
issue and the other things we are hearing about
massive collections of information on the American
citizens. Websites use up to a hundred tracking tools
to collect personal information. Americans have lost
jobs and have been denied mortgages when data-brokers
have shared incorrect information and scammers use a
data-brokerage list to target vulnerable populations
like seniors. Many mobile apps show location
information and phone numbers. Women and children have
been hurt or killed when location data was shared with
abusers.
This bill seeks to make the internet more transparent,
it simply requires that website owners and online
services tell people what personal information they
are collecting and who it is being provided to. I
would point out that similar legislation has passed
the Illinois state senate and my staff checked was in
third reading in their state house, today. Canada and
the United Kingdom both have laws that allow consumers
to find out what data is being shared about them. The
European Union passed regulations in 2016 which goes
into effect next month which are similar to this bill
and actually goes further than this bill because they
have what they call "Right to Be Forgotten," which is
the right for the consumer to ask websites and the
data-brokerage firms to actually delete the data that
they have collected on them; we are not going quite
that far but this would put us among the leaders in
the nation in protecting Alaskans' internet privacy.
3:52:34 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Senator Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a sectional analysis on SB
118 as follows:
Section 1:
Titles the legislation, the "Right to Know Act."
Section 2:
Enumerates legislative findings relating to Alaska's
constitutional right of privacy and detailing the
importance of transparency and security for consumers,
and business practices related to personal digital
data.
Section 3:
AS 45.48.800, requires the owner of a commercial
internet website or commercial online service to
notify customers of their information sharing
practices, it outlines what information the owner must
include in the notification.
[AS 45.48.810] requires the owner of a commercial
internet website or commercial online service, if
requested by the customer, to provide the customer any
information shared about them in the previous 12
months and outlines which information the owner must
provide to the customer.
[AS 45.48.820] identifies the categories of personal
information that the owner needs to disclose.
[AS 45.48.830] outlines different exceptions to the
disclosure requirement.
[AS 45.48.840] allows the customer to recover damages
if an owner violates the right to know.
[AS 45.48.850] outlines how the right to know
interacts with existing privacy regulations on the
state and federal level.
The last section in section 3 provides definitions.
Section 4:
Establishes that this is only applicable to data
collected after the effective date.
3:55:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if SB 118 was modeled after some "model
legislation" or from states that were considering internet
privacy. He explained that he was thinking about the difference
between Alaska and other states on constitutional privacy.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that he did not know if there was
model legislation regarding internet privacy but noted that SB
118 is like what is being done in Illinois.
3:55:35 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL joined the committee meeting.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed the bill's application and asked if he
has heard of any struggles on applying; for example, the need
for a regulatory agency, how it would be housed in Alaska and
how an individual would contact the agency.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered as follows:
We are not contemplating at this point a regulatory
agency that would oversee this. We are contemplating
that individuals would have a cause of action, a legal
right to sue, it's in page 5, lines 26-30. So, if
there was a violation there would be a monetary
penalty of $5,000 or whatever the actual damage where,
whatever is greater plus attorney's fees. It's not
something that we would anticipate would have a fiscal
note. It's not something that we would anticipate the
government would be overseeing and enforcing, but it
would have that private right to action which we think
would lead to enforcement.
SENATOR COGHILL surmised that the civil issue would have to be
taken to court.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the scenario Senator Wielechowski
described would be a "David versus Goliath" situation.
3:57:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI concurred and noted that his office printed
out terms of service for companies like Google. He pointed out
that Google does not tell customers exactly what they do and
speculated what they would say as follows:
Well, we may sell your data, we may take it, we are
not going to tell you exactly what we are going to
take, we are not going to tell you who we are going to
provide this to, but we may go ahead and do it. So, it
would require more specificity.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that he would ponder Senator
Wielechowski's reply.
SENATOR WILSON noted Senator Coghill's enforcement comments and
asked if the bill is strictly for Alaska-based internet
transactions versus a federal issue with all internet
transactions.
MS. SORUM-BIRK replied as follows:
This is specific to commercial internet websites or
commercial online services, that would be any
commercial internet website or commercial online
service. So, a commercial online service would be
something that you would subscribe to like Netflix or
Amazon Prime.
She summarized that the legislation was going where things were
heading anyway because the internet was an international medium.
She explained that websites operating in Europe will have to
provide a lot of the information required under the new European
Union regulations. She said the bill's sponsor wants to make
sure that Alaskans have privacy protection and the ability to
know what data is being stored and collected.
4:00:02 PM
SENATOR WILSON remarked that he questioned enforcement for
companies in other countries.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded as follows:
There may be companies that you can't get ahold of,
there may be websites where that is true, that would
be up to the person who wants to enforce that, the
lawyers. I think if you come in to the State of Alaska
with your website you are subjecting yourself to the
jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, but I do think it
is important to remember that this is something that
is going to be done in the European Union, something
that is going to be done in Canada, very similar,
something is already being done in the United Kingdom.
I think the vast majority of the websites that are out
there are probably the ones that people go to on a
regular basis are large, are things like CNN, MSNBC,
Fox News, Yahoo, they are Unites States based. If
there is a website that is collecting your information
in some country that we don't have any sort of
treaties with, yes, you probably aren't going to be
able to sue them, that is probably accurate.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the legislation should be done on the
federal level rather than on the state level.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered yes. He conceded that the
legislation is evolving at the state level because it is not
happening at the federal level. He opined that Alaska has a very
strong and explicit right to privacy with an obligation for
enforcement by statute.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed with Senator Wielechowski's intent and
opined that if enough states were to pass similar legislation a
combined effort for a class action was possible if big industry
was not to respond. He said he saw the value of putting the
proposed legislation into statute to show the industry that they
must respect the consumers. He conceded that he had not looked
at the language in the bill and would have to review and ponder.
He asked Senator Wielechowski if he concurred with his remarks.
4:03:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered absolutely. He asserted that the
bill would be groundbreaking legislation that has not passed in
any other state; however, he noted that Illinois would probably
pass similar legislation within the next few days. He continued
as follows:
It's one of those things where if you pass it in one
state, I think from my understanding how this works it
will not be hard for these companies to comply with.
The ones that collect this data, the data-brokers, I
think are pretty easily going to provide this
information; but absolutely, if one state passes this
I think you will see a ripple effect, a domino effect
all across the other states because if you've got to
do it for one state, you are setting up that
infrastructure, you are really going to be able to
provide it for every other state in the country.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that Senator Wielechowski quoted a privacy
advocate and asked if the individual has been used in other
places and if he can be approached as a resource. He inquired if
the issue was an international discussion.
4:05:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that the privacy advocate was
quoted from a National Public Radio (NPR) article. He reiterated
that the individual was an advocate for the Center for Digital
Democracy. He noted that a number of people and organizations
were concerned about privacy and added that a lot of libertarian
organizations were concerned as well. He continued as follows:
This is something that people all across the country
when you start talking about getting into their
private information and selling it and accessing all
sorts of things, that concerns people and there are
definitely organizations; but, we can reach out to
this person if you'd like and try to put him in touch
with you or the committee.
SENATOR COGHILL asked that contact with the individual would be
appreciated at least for himself or maybe the committee as well.
He noted that he has not reviewed the research that Senator
Wielechowski submitted with his legislation but added that the
topic may be new but the subject is not.
CHAIR MEYER asked that Senator Wielechowski provide the
information to his office for distribution to committee members.
He asked if the state runs the risk of companies bypassing
Alaska if the state is the only one that has the privacy law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered that he did not think so and
questioned whether a company could block a specific state. He
opined that the information required in the legislation would
not be difficult for companies to provide. He said like Senator
Coghill said, the intent is to start a domino effect with a good
law that other states can look at. He conceded that a law at the
federal level would be ideal, but legislation just has not
happened yet.
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Wielechowski had someone
scheduled to testify on SB 118.
MS. SORUM-BIRK replied that the testifier was not available, but
a written testimony was submitted.
CHAIR MEYER announced that public testimony would be left open.
4:08:25 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 118 in committee.
HB 96-TAXES; DEDUCTIONS; FEES; TAX STAMP DISCOUNT
4:08:42 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 96 (HB
96).
4:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, Sponsor of HB 96, provided an overview as follows:
House Bill 96 came about because 4 years ago we passed
HB 306 which addressed indirect expenditures and it
was passed and it's in the statutes now. Indirect
expenditures are discounts that corporations can take
against their state tax, it's a reduction in fees and
things like that that we don't ever see, those fees
never show up in the budget, we don't see them. So, HB
306 required that the Treasury Department every two
years must make a report showing all of the foregone
revenue that the state didn't receive due to indirect
expenditures and discounts and reductions in fees;
they make that report, they turn it over to
Legislative Finance and they then produce a report
that is passed out to all of the legislators so we can
see the lost fees that we don't receive. HB 96
addresses 4 of those indirect expenditures and it will
save the state or bring back to the state over
$350,000.
He added that his staff member would address the four indirect
expenditures that HB 96 addresses.
4:10:44 PM
FORREST WOLFE, Staff, Representative Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, provided an overview of HB 96 as follows:
HB 96 repeals or removes 4 minor-indirect expenditures
from state law which would provide a modest
[inaudible] increased revenue to the State of Alaska.
The first removes the deduction of federal taxes from
the adjusted gross income when calculating the state
tax collected on gambling onboard large cruise ships.
The second is a provision that allows an investigation
of expense under the Alaska Small Loans Act to replace
a few required under the Alaska Businesses License
Act.
Third, it removes a four-tenths of one percent
deduction from the tobacco tax for the expense of
accounting and filing of that tax return each month.
Finally, the fourth one is it repeals a discount on
cigarette tax stamps which was originally intended to
be compensation for physically affixing these stamps
to the packages themselves.
According to the fiscal note provided by the
Department of Revenue, it is estimated that HB 96 will
increase revenue by at least $339,500 if FY2019, of
which about $220,000 will go to the unrestricted
general fund.
In this time of financial instability and economic
hardship, the state needs to find increased revenue
where ever it can, and HB 96 is a step in the right
direction.
CHAIR MEYER asked why the bill will generate revenue to the
state. I noted that the state would no longer be paying for tax
stamps to be placed on cigarettes packs.
4:12:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON explained that the state pays quite
amount of money to cigarette companies to affix the tax stamp on
the bottom of the pack of cigarettes. He specified that the
expenditure was originally put into place so that the cigarette
companies could pay for the equipment used to affix the tax
stamps. He conceded that the tax-stamp equipment has been paid
for many times over and the savings would be the largest amount
of money from the legislation. He added that the discounts for
filling out forms amounts to some money while the cruise ship
tax is indeterminate and will be explained by Mr. Alper, [Tax
Division Director].
CHAIR MEYER asked if each tobacco company affix tax stamps to
their cigarette packs or does a single distributor affix tax
stamps for all tobacco brands.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON replied that everyone must go through
one machine. He specified that the state must pay for the tax
stamp to be affixed to the cigarette packs.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that the state does not know if the
equipment has been paid for and the equipment payoff is
speculation.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that if there is a cost that is
going to happen for affixing the tax stamp, the cost will have
to be added to a pack of cigarettes. He reiterated that the
state continues to allow the fund to take a very large discount
off corporate taxes.
4:15:07 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL thanked Representative Thompson for bringing HB
96 forward and identifying four-indirect expenditures. She said
she looked at the indirect expenses report and could hardly
believe the expenditures that were in place.
SENATOR EGAN asked to confirm that the tax stamps prove that
"it's Alaska." He noted that he has friends that buy cigarettes
from tribes in Washington state and the cigarette packs do not
have tax stamps.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON explained that cigarettes sold
commercially in the State of Alaska must have the state's tax
stamp affixed.
SENATOR EGAN replied that he understood the tax stamp
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON specified that commercial sellers of
cigarettes without the state's tax stamp are liable for a very
large fine. He noted that people could possibly buy cigarettes
online to avoid paying the tax.
SENATOR EGAN asked if the cigarettes sold onboard cruise ships
have the state's tax stamp.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON suggested Senator Egan's question be
posed to Mr. Alper.
CHAIR MEYER asked how other states deal with their cigarette tax
stamps.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON replied that he does not know. He noted
that there is a big movement across the nation to address
indirect expenditures at the state level. He pointed out that
indirect expenditures do not show up in a budget and nobody
really sees how much money that are forgone.
CHAIR MEYER asked how long the state has been dealing with
indirect expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON suggested that Chair Meyer's question be
posed to Mr. Alper.
4:18:14 PM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, Alaska Department of Revenue,
Juneau, Alaska, said three of four items in the bill relate to
the Tax Division. He explained that the first item relates to
the cruise-ship-gambling tax, which was a component of the
initiative that put the $50 head tax on cruise ships in the 2006
election. He said large cruise companies file the gambling tax
which is 33 percent of net profits tax on the activities while
ships are in state waters. He detailed that the tax brings in
about $6 million per year in general funds. He noted that the
cruise ship gambling tax is one of ten excise taxes that
includes: alcohol, tobacco, motor fuels, mining, tires, vehicle
rental, marijuana, and remnants of the film-tax program.
He explained that the two other items in the bill relate to the
tobacco tax, the second item in the bill eliminates the four-
tenths of one-percent discount for timely filing, an activity
that is not unusual in the taxing world. He said the third item
is eliminating the cigarette-tax-sticker discount. He explained
that the tax is unusual because the stickers are presold to the
tobacco distributors in Alaska. He detailed that the stickers
are discounted by 1 to 3 percent, amounting to approximately
$250,000. He noted that Alaska's cigarette tax annually brings
in $20 million to $25 million to the state.
4:22:55 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Egan addressed cigarettes
purchased from tribes without tax stamps and inquired if
military bases have similar privileges.
MR. ALPER replied that he did not know the military rules but
noted that there are maritime tax-off stamps. He disclosed that
the tax division has a criminal investigations unit. He
concurred that there are online sources for cigarettes and noted
that purchasing online is not inherently illegal, but the person
that does purchase online is obligated to pay the state's excise
tax, $20 per carton.
CHAIR MEYER asked if Mr. Alper would like to see any changes or
modifications to HB 96.
MR. ALPER commented that elements within the bill are fine and
noted that he would not have an issue if the committee addressed
other indirect expenditures like an early filling discount for
motor fuel. He pointed out that HB 399 is a bill that would
eliminate some corporate income tax loopholes, savings that
would amount to $6 million to $7 million. He summarized that
bit-by-bit it is important to scoop up revenue that is "being
left on the table," especially before adding any new taxes.
4:26:23 PM
CHAIR MEYER said he questioned the gambling activities onboard
the cruise ships and noted that the calculation of the tax was
"kind of a mystery."
MR. ALPER pointed out that the gambling tax only applies to
large vessels with more than 500 passengers that are in state
waters. He remarked that the gambling tax is not one that the
division has massive resources to invest in auditing the
timeclocks on the cruise ships' casinos, so a little bit of
trust is involved with the tax collections. He said regarding
what happens with the deduction of federal taxes and not being
able to forecast their federal taxes, predicting what the number
is hard but estimated that the amount is in the low six figures,
a relatively small increment on top of the existing tax.
4:27:44 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened and closed public testimony.
4:28:12 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 96 in committee.
HB 168-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
4:28:45 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of HB 168.
4:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 168, provided an overview as follows:
House Bill 168 repeals that statutes pertaining to the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee (ARRC).
According to an analysis that was provided by
Legislative Research, the ARRC has not overturned any
regulations as a result of these committee hearings.
Although AS 24.20.445 provides that the committee can
suspend regulations for certain amount of time, the
Alaska Supreme Court found in a 1980 case that the
Legislature has no implied power to veto agency
regulations by informal legislative action and such
action would violate Article 2 of the state
constitution. The actions that are available for the
ARRC are to introduce legislation to supersede or to
nullify regulations; however, Legislative Research was
not able to find any effort to do so from 2000 to the
present.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT summarized as follows:
What we are doing is trying to get rid of a committee
that we see no real value in. As I stated, it hasn't
introduced any legislation committee-wise on a number
of years, even though they have had a number of
meetings, no legislation has been introduced. Also,
you have before you House Concurrent Resolution 10
which would allow the jurisdiction of standing
committees to oversee the purposed or adopted
regulations to replace regulation oversite that is
currently under ARRC.
CHAIR MEYER asked that Mr. Wright highlight the bill's sectional
analysis.
4:32:23 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that there were four pages that repealed
23 sections and the main section, section 3, deletes the
regulations for the ARRC as follows:
Review of administrative regulations by standing
committees of the Legislature and it allows a standing
committee of jurisdiction consistent with the
Legislature's Uniform Rules and that's why HCR 10 is
in front of you, to review or purposed or adopted
regulation an amendment of a regulation or a repeal of
a regulation, and it repeals language stating before
the date the regulation scheduled by a department or
agency to be adopted, amended or repealed.
He summarized that the rest of the sections were conforming, any
reference to the ARRC were deleted.
CHAIR MEYER said he believed that the Legislature has not
budgeted for ARRC for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT replied that ARRC was not funded last
year and confirmed that there was no money in the budget for the
present year.
CHAIR MEYER commented that when ARRC was first started that the
intent was good. He opined that as regulations get written that
sometimes the result was not the bill's intention. He asserted
that having oversite over regulations was important but noted
that HB 168 purposes that standing committees would have
jurisdiction.
4:34:33 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL disclosed that she served on ARRC for four year.
She confirmed that the committee never repealed any regulation.
She noted one incident where ARRC received a lot of public
comment that resulted in the committee convincing a department
not to put out a certain regulation package; however, she
conceded that the same process could have been done by a
legislator at any time. She pointed out that ARRC had a
substantial budget appropriation with a designated staff member
who had to follow all the regulation packages that came out. She
concurred that eliminating ARRC would save money and the action
was positive.
MR. WRIGHT recounted receiving notice from Legislative Legal on
problematic regulations when he served in the speaker's office.
He noted that he passed the notices on to ARRC and disclosed
that he did not remember any hearings based on the notices that
he forwarded. He pointed out that when a somewhat ominous
regulation is enacted that the public will let legislators know
that they do not like it and referenced a recent airplane tax
that the administration decided not to go forward with. He
concurred with Senator Giessel that individual legislators have
the right to introduce legislation to repeal a regulation.
4:36:36 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL disclosed that she has introduction two bills
during the current session that will repeal regulations. She
agreed with Mr. Wright that legislators can certainly carry
legislation to repeal regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT disclosed that his office has also
introduced legislation over the years to repeal statutes that no
longer worked.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that one of Representative
Chenault's bills repealed branding.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered yes.
CHAIR MEYER asked how long ARRC has been in existence.
MR. WRIGHT stated that ARRC was created in 2003-2004.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT informed that ARRC has been in effect
since the early 1980s. He noted that his office had Legislative
Research go back to 2003, the Twenty-third Legislature. He
disclosed that ARRC had 30 meetings since 2003 and noted that 15
meetings occurred in 2013-2014 during the Twenty-eighth
Legislature, but the average year since 2003 had between 2 to 5
meetings.
4:38:23 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
4:38:52 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report HB 168, version 30-LS0682\A from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
4:39:09 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
4:39:13 PM
At ease.
HCR 10-UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
4:39:42 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 10 (HCR 10).
4:40:04 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report HCR 10, version 30-LS0683\A from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
4:40:22 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
4:40:33 PM
At ease.
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
4:42:54 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 20 (HB
20).
4:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 20, provided an overview as follows:
In financially challenging times like we face, I'm
reminded that part of our role as elected officials is
to reduce red-tape and make government accessible to
the public. In introducing this bill, I would like to
make marriage more easily accessible. The bill will
allow couples to have their marriage solemnized
directly by elected officials.
He noted that "elected officials" includes mayors, school board
members, anyone that has been elected to public office. He
specified the bill will allow elected officials to perform the
marriages without making couples go down to the courthouse to
get a marriage commissioner's license. He said the bill will
allow public officials to be the "friendly face of government"
while providing a service to the public. He added that being
allowed to perform a marriage would be a privilege and elected
officials would be fortunate to have the opportunity to
solemnize a marriage from time to time. He said the bill puts
into statute the constitutional principle that religious figures
and others cannot be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony.
4:44:44 PM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview and sectional
analysis of HB 20.
HB 20 amends Alaska's marriage code to add language
that allows for marriages to be solemnized by elected
officials of the State of Alaska. Section 1 amends AS
25.05.261(a) relating to who may solemnize a marriage,
currently the statute only allows for marriage
solemnization by a religious official which includes
ministers, priests, rabbis or commissioned officers of
the Salvation Army, a marriage commissioner or
judicial officer, or before or in any religious
organization or congregation. HB 20 adds language to
add to the list an individual holding an elected
public office in the state.
Section 2 adds a new subsection to the same statute
that says, "No religious official, organization or
elected official that is authorized for marriages is
obligated to do so." AS 25.05.281 which allows
marriages solemnized by an unauthorized person
professing to be authorized is to be considered valid
as amended in section 3 to include language that reads
that marriages solemnized by an elected official is
considered valid whereas someone professing to be an
elected official.
The purpose of this bill is to make marriage
accessible to all Alaskans. We recognize that marriage
opens doors for many people. There are over 1100
places in federal laws and programs for being married
expands an individual's opportunities, examples
include access to healthcare for one's spouse or
having eligibility for family medical leave. Frankly,
we believe that this bill is a family-first bill that
allows people to receive greater benefits that are
good for all Alaskans.
Additionally, HB 20 allows elected officials to be
good stewards of government, it allows elected
officials to interact on a one-on-one basis with
constituents providing a service that has a lasting
impact on constituents' lives. Whereas couples can
currently have anyone solemnize marriage through a
marriage commissioner appointment, there's a $25 fee
and the process can be time consuming. Having an
elected official available provides simplified cost-
free outlet.
This amendment may also apply to couples who may not
be affiliated with a particular religious
organization, they would be able to have an elected
official perform their wedding without having to go
through the process of arranging for a marriage
commissioner appointment. In smaller towns or rural
area with limited resources, this change provides one
more outlet for marriage solemnization; for example,
if a couple in a remote Alaska village is set to be
married and the minister becomes ill, the mayor could
step-in in short notice.
With that, I'll stress that nothing in this bill
mandates that elected officials must solemnize
marriage and I'll also note that the Department of
Health and Social Services has assigned a zero-fiscal
note to this bill. This bill actually removes an
expense to citizens who would otherwise pay a $25 fee
for a marriage commissioner appointment.
4:47:45 PM
SENATOR COGHILL disclosed that he has been a marriage
commissioner and noted that paperwork involved. He asked if
paperwork would be required for elected officials as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered no. He explained that an elected
official's marriage solemnization procedure would be like others
that are identified that can perform marriages such as a
Salvation Army officer. He explained that part of the point is
that somebody could call up an elected official on short notice
to perform the ceremony.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what documentation would be required for
the marriage ceremony.
4:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied as follows:
The marriage license itself that when somebody gets
married now would be somebody that has a marriage
commissioners license or judge, or minister would
actually sign the form that the marriage license
saying this is the day they got married.
SENATOR COGHILL asked to confirm that the process Representative
Claman explained would be up to the couple.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered right, but the signature would
come from the elected official that indicated who they are.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that his intent was to learn how the
practically played out as far as signing the solemnization. He
asked to confirm that the signature would be on the license
document. He noted that the license document is what the couple
applies for.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered correct. He explained that the
bill would not remove the need for a couple to get a marriage
license.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that elected officials can
currently perform marriages without passing the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered correct but noted that either the
elected official or couple would have to stand in line to get
the marriage license.
4:50:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if the process can be done online.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that he did not know.
MS. PERMAN referenced an email from Nancy Meade, [general
counsel for the Alaska Court System], that addressed a similar
question from a previous committee hearing as follows:
You asked whether the marriage commissioner applicant
must be physically at the court counter to get an
appointment order. No, this may vary by court
location, but in Anchorage and Juneau for example, I
learn that they even process applications that they
receive in the mail if signed, and the couple can
bring the signed form without the commissioner
applicant present, I believe that is true for nearly
all Alaska courts.
CHAIR MEYER asked if former elected officials can perform or
does the bill apply to current elected officials.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that the bill only applies to
elected officials that are currently serving.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that the bill would only pertain to
the State of Alaska and that a person could not go to Oregon for
their marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered no, the bill applies to Alaska.
SENATOR WILSON asked Representative Claman to address the bill's
current version where version J was amended to delete the
language about an individual holding elected public office may
refuse to solemnize a marriage for any reason.
4:54:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that section 2 in the "O"
version clarifies as follows:
When three of the four categories of individuals can
be compelled to perform a marriage, the only
individual that could be compelled to perform a
marriage would be members of the judiciary and they
recognize that that's part of their job.
SENATOR WILSON asked why the change in the language from the
previous version.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the final version of the
bill expands the group of people who can decline to perform a
marriage for whatever reason.
SENATOR WILSON asked what would occur if the mayor of a city
performed marriages for a fee at city hall but declined to
perform marriages to certain individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied as follows:
It's a two-part answer, if the mayor went into a
business as you described of performing marriages in
city hall, then I think you would have issues about
public access to city hall and so in that specific
instance you might run into a more complicated
question. On the other hand, if the mayor was
performing marriages in his backyard and he had a nice
garden and was doing it in his garden and it wasn't a
public facility in anyway, then this statute would
allow the mayor to say, "I'm not going to marry a gay
couple, I'm not going to marry an interracial couple,
I'm not going to marry whoever," you could make that
choice but I think if it's going on in city hall then
I think you'll have a little different question.
4:56:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER commented as follows:
My overall first opinion of this was that it's
definitely an honor and a privilege to be an elected
official and have people trust us to vote on their
behalf. I almost think this is putting us now in a
different class than other folks because now we don't
have to stand in line, we don't have to go to the web
and pay the fee and all that. Are we kind of elevating
ourselves in status by doing something like this?
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that he did not think the bill
would elevate public officials. He noted that he has heard from
several people that they would appreciate having elected
officials solemnize marriages as part of their public service.
CHAIR MEYER noted that no one has asked him to solemnize a
marriage.
SENATOR WILSON asked if the legislation has gone through an
ethics review to verify whether an elected official can be paid
for solemnizing marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN conceded that the topic of one getting
paid had never crossed his mind. He pointed out that the bill
does not authorize a person to get paid and noted that payment
would raise a question related to ethics issues. He remarked
that if someone were to ask him to solemnize a marriage that he
would not ask to be paid. He said he suspected to the extent
that if somebody did want to get paid that the request would
need to go to ethic analysis.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that he was under the same impression that
public officials would do the service for free if someone had
enough trust and respect to ask.
SENATOR EGAN disclosed that he had solemnized three marriages
and his payment was "champagne and wedding cake."
5:00:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony and noted that no one had
requested to testify. He asked to confirm that the amended bill
had a change in opinion from the Alaska Family Council.
MS. PERMAN answered correct.
5:01:49 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony. He noted that he has
reviewed submitted testimony and the comments on the bill have
been favorable. He added that the bill has a zero fiscal note.
5:02:07 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report CSHB 20(JUD), version 30-
LS0242\O from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note.
5:02:18 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced there being no objection, the motion
carried.
5:03:26 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 5:03 p.m.