Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/2018 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB267 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 219(JUD)
"An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties
require access to certain federal tax information;
relating to current or prospective contractors 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."
2:16:37 PM
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, presented the bill. He explained
that HB 219 authorized agencies to mandate national
criminal history record checks that included
fingerprinting, for state employees and contractors
accessing certain federal tax information. The Internal
Revenue Service's (IRS) "Publication 1075" (published by
the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
and updated September 30, 2016) specified the requirements
that state and local agencies must follow to obtain certain
federal tax information directly from the IRS. The IRS
enacted the measures to safeguard the information. He
related that the bill applied primarily to three
departments: The Department of Revenue, Child Support
Services Division and the Tax Division; the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), and the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS). He reiterated that
the 2016 update for Publication 1075 required the criminal
history record checks that included fingerprinting. The
state implemented the background checks but needed further
authority to require fingerprinting. He summarized that
essentially, the bill authorized the fingerprinting
requirement. The fingerprints were submitted to the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) who sent them to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the national
criminal history check.
2:18:53 PM
Mr. Spanos discussed the 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.
Senator Stevens asked what areas of the state the employees
that required fingerprinting were located. Mr. Spanos only
knew the location of the DOR employees that were primarily
located in Anchorage and Juneau. He offered that an
employee could go to any law enforcement agency for
fingerprinting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the Office of Children's
Services was affected by the bill. Mr. Spanos did not know
the answer.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered what the procedure was for
sending fingerprints to the FBI.
2:22:43 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL RECORDS AND
IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), explained that fingerprints for employment
or licensing purposes were received as a "rolled" set of
fingerprints on a "hard card format." The department
digitized the fingerprints and compared them in the state's
system that was a consortium of 8 states systems in one
shared database. Subsequently, they were sent
electronically to the FBI for the background check. The FBI
destroyed the fingerprints after the background check was
completed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
2:24:35 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed the fiscal notes. He noted the
four zero fiscal notes accompanying the bill. The first was
for DOC, allocated to Administrative Services, FN6 (COR),
the second was for DHSS, allocated to Administrative
Support Services, FN7 (DHS), and the third was for DPS,
allocated to Criminal Justice Information Systems Program,
FN9 (DPS). Lastly, he pointed to the DLWD zero fiscal note,
FN6 (LWF) allocated to Unemployment Insurance and relayed
that the anticipated cost would be covered within the
current budget through federal funds. He continued with the
fiscal impact note for DOR, FN10 (REV), allocated to the
Tax Division in the amount of $4.8 thousand for FY 19 and
$500 in the outyears. He read from the analysis on the page
2 of the fiscal note:
This bill authorizes state agencies that receive
Federal Tax Information (FTI) to undergo federal
background checks as now required in IRS Publication
1075. Background checks would be conducted on all
current and new employees at a cost of $47 for each
completed investigation.
The Tax Division estimates that 102 employees will be
fingerprinted in the first year, and approximately 10
employees in subsequent years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether DOR had to adopt new
regulations with passage of the legislation. Mr. Spanos
answered in the negative. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked why the
department did not calculate the cost of fingerprints as
revenue on the fiscal note. Mr. Spanos replied that the
cost of fingerprinting did not change the department's
revenue. He added that losing the ability to receive the
federal information would negatively impact the
department. Co-Chair MacKinnon inquired whether DOR was
charging anyone to perform fingerprinting. Mr. Spanos
responded that DOR planned to pay for the fingerprinting
and not charge the employees.
2:27:07 PM
AT EASE
2:29:07 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Bishop pointed to the following from the fiscal
note, "An updated background check will also be required
every ten years." He assumed that did include
fingerprinting. Mr. Spanos replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked what changed on fingerprints after
10 years. Mr. Spanos responded that he thought the same
thing and considered maintaining a record of the
fingerprints for resubmission if possible. However, the
background checks were required every 10 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that some of the fiscal notes
reported that fingerprinting cost $47 per set, and the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) believed that a small
amount of revenue would be generated from fingerprinting.
However, she understood that Mr. Spanos stated DOR would
not charge employees for fingerprinting. She wanted to
discuss the issue of storing someone's personal information
and any liability issue that might result for the state as
a result. She requested further review of the DPS fiscal
note.
2:31:16 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop pointed to one last DOR fiscal impact
note allocated to the Child Support Services Division in
the amount of $10 thousand for FY 19 and $1.5 thousand in
the outyears. He mentioned that $6.6 thousand was in
Federal Receipts and the remaining $3.4 thousand in
Undesignated General Funds (UGF). He read from page 2 of
the analysis:
The Child Support Services Division has 196 employees
who will be fingerprinted in the first year, and
approximately 32 employees each subsequent year. Every
10 years, background checks must be renewed.
Background checks would be conducted on all current
and new employees at a cost of $47 for each completed
investigation.
Vice-Chair Bishop relayed that he had concerns regarding
what happened to the background check information after ten
years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon questioned whether regulations were
necessary for the Division of Child Support Services with
passage of the bill. She purported that the fiscal note did
not speak to the question.
2:33:04 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon returned to the DPS fiscal note and
asked Ms. Monfreda to comment regarding storage of
employee's background information for ten years and the FBI
destruction of fingerprints. She referred to an earlier
version of the DPS fiscal note that reported revenue from
the collection of fingerprints. Ms. Monfreda reiterated
that the department's fiscal note was zero because the fee
collected for processing the fingerprints was equal to the
cost charged by the FBI, which billed DPS monthly. She
continued that the reason for the 10 year renewal was that
fingerprints changed through the aging process or were worn
down. She reiterated that the FBI destroyed the
fingerprints and DPS stored the fingerprints. Fingerprints
over one-year old were unacceptable to the FBI. Co-Chair
MacKinnon confirmed that DPS was storing the fingerprints.
Ms. Monfreda replied in the affirmative.
CSHB 219(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:35:20 PM
AT EASE
2:35:51 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB106 Additional Document-HFIN Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Additional Document-SJUD Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sponsor Statement 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sectional Analysis ver D 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sponsor Statement 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |