Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/28/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB217 | |
| HJR29 | |
| HB386 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties
require access to certain federal tax information;
relating to persons under contract with the state with
access to certain federal tax information;
establishing state personnel procedures required for
employee access to certain federal tax information;
and providing for an effective date."
1:33:04 PM
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced the legislation. He read
from a sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Amends AS 12.62.400 by adding a new subsection.
This will require an agency to submit the fingerprints
of current or prospective employees or contractors
whose job duties require access to federal tax
information (defined in AS 39.55.015(e)(3) and
36.30.960(d)(3)) to the Department of Public Safety
for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to obtain a criminal history record. Defines "agency",
"employee" and "contractor".
Section 2
Amends AS 36.30 by adding a new section.
This section establishes state personnel procedures
for obtaining and submitting fingerprints for current
or prospective contractors if a contract with the
state requires access to federal tax information.
Defines "agency", "contractor" and "federal tax
information".
Section 3
Amends AS 39 by adding a new chapter.
This new chapter addresses state personnel procedures
related to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.010
This section explains the purpose of the chapter-- to
establish procedures to safeguard federal tax
information which will apply to a current or
prospective state employee whose job duties require
access to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.015
This section requires current and prospective state
employees whose job duties require
access to federal tax information to provide
information to an agency for a state and national
criminal history record check. Defines "agency",
"employee", "federal tax information", "return", and
"return information".
Section 4
Provides the effective date of July 1, 2018.
Representative Wilson stated that she did not understand
why the department and agencies were doing the
fingerprinting and sending them in; rather than the
employee pay for the process.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Pruitt and Vice-Chair Gara.
Mr. Spanos noted it was a good point. He felt that it could
be another option.
Representative Wilson stressed that the state did not have
any money, so she did not understand why the budget would
be increased. She noted that the fiscal notes showed that
the Department of Corrections (DOC) had the program for
free. She wondered why DOC was free.
Mr. Spanos replied that he understood that DOC did the
program themselves, so the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) would charge for the cost of the background check.
1:37:19 PM
GARY LEE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Representative Wilson wondered whether DPS had a cost to
the background checks.
Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative. He stated that the cost
was $47 for a fingerprint-based background check.
Representative Wilson wondered whether DPS paid for that
cost for those that had been accepted into the department,
or whether the employee paid for the cost.
Mr. Lee answered that it was generally funded by the
requesting agency. He stated that DPS did approximately
40,000 background checks per year for agencies.
Representative Tilton noted that there were some agencies
within the fiscal note that stated that they could absorb
the costs, and other agencies were doing it for free. She
wondered why the individual paying for the background
check. She understood that the federal government would not
allow the documentation to be available to the agencies
without the background checks. She queried the agencies'
different uses of the background checks.
Mr. Spanos answered that the Tax Division used the
information to compare corporate tax returns to the federal
tax return, and verify that the information was similar. He
stated that the IRS would share information about a
corporation audit. He stated that Child Support Services
used the information to garnish a tax refund. He stated
that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOLWD) used the background check to verify wage
information for the unemployment insurance tax.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the legislation would
give the state employees and contractors access to federal
tax information. He stressed that the entity paying for the
service controlled the service. He wondered whether the
federal government had a requirement outlining whether the
state or individual paid for the background check, and how
it would be processed, paid for, and shared.
1:42:43 PM
Mr. Spanos answered that the IRS released a document,
"Publication 1075", which detailed the state requirements
in order to continue to receive federal tax information. He
stated that the state was in compliance with all the
requirements, except for the fingerprinting. He announced
that there was an implemented policy on background checks,
and those checks were conducted up to the level possible.
He stressed that the fingerprinting required authority. He
stated that the Publication 1075 the IRS did not specify
who would pay for the fingerprinting, rather it stated that
the states must conduct background checks on their
employees.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the issue only
applied to state employees or contractors who would access
the federal tax information.
Mr. Spanos answered in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked how many people would have
access.
Mr. Spanos answered that there were approximately 105
filled positions in the division that would have access or
potential access. He remarked that there were only six
employees that actually had the security to go into the
system to view the information. He stressed that there was
a possibility to view the information on the computer. He
stated that, in Child Support Services, the number was 250
people, and deferred to Ms. Beecher for more information.
He restated that the number was closer to 200.
Representative Kawasaki stated that currently there were no
criminal background checks done in the agency. He asked if
it was a new requirement.
Mr. Spanos answered that the publication was finalized the
year prior. He stated that with the updated publication,
the Child Support Division and Tax Division created a new
policy for background checks. That policy was already
implemented. He stressed that they had yet to implement
fingerprinting run through the federal database. He
explained that it was the final step of the background
check.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the department would
not be doing the fingerprinting.
Mr. Spanos replied that fingerprints would be done by the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). He deferred to Mr.
Gaffney for more information.
Representative Wilson questioned the details of the efforts
of DPS.
ERIC GAFFNEY, RECORDS AND LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), responded that most
fingerprinted in Alaska for civil purposes was done either
by private commercial finger printers, employers, or local
police agency. He stated that DPS usually did not conduct
fingerprinting in larger urban areas, because there were
private venders who provided that service. He shared that
there was no strict rule on who should roll the
fingerprints. He remarked that the fingerprints were
conveyed to DPS, were scanned, and then transmitted to the
FBI. He remarked that the rolling of the fingerprints was a
different issue than processing them for background checks.
He stated that there was no specific rule in Alaska, except
for concealed handgun permits, on who may or was required
to roll those prints.
1:47:38 PM
Representative Tilton asked for more information about the
federal receipts in the fiscal note.
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), asked for a
restatement of the question.
Representative Tilton noted that the fiscal note showed the
source of funding from federal receipts. She wondered
whether there was a federal grant with a match that would
help to pay for the program.
Ms. Beecher replied that the Child Support Division was a
federally matched program. She explained that the state put
forward 34 percent of the budget, and was matched at a 66
percent rate from the federal government. She shared that
66 percent of the cost would be bourn by the federal match
money.
Representative Wilson noted that the fiscal note specified
that currently there was no cost to the DOC to do
background checks. She wondered why the background checks
were free.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
stated her understanding of the question. She assumed that
the question was asking why DPS did not charge DOC for
processing the fingerprints.
Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note showed
that the fingerprinting was provided, currently, to the
department at no fee. Therefore, she assumed that DOC was
not charged either.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative. She stated that
DOC currently processed their own fingerprints, and rolled
fingerprints through the machine. It was a cooperative
agreement in place within the DOC facilities in support of
DPS. She shared that the DOC would resubmit its employee
and contractor backgrounds. She stated that DPS did not
bill DOC for the processing on the background and criminal
checks.
Representative Wilson surmised it would be cheaper to go
through DOC for everything.
Mr. Spanos appreciated receiving the federal tax
information. He stated that the information helped with
audits and receive revenue. He shared that, over the
previous five years, the department had received an average
of $2 million per year.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
HB 219 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.