Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/01/2018 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 | |
| HB56 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB217 | |
| HB299 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 299(FIN)
"An Act relating to the authority of the director of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; extending the
termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; relating to the application of precedent to
decisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and
providing for an effective date."
2:22:30 PM
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, explained
the bill. She indicated that HB 299 extended the sunset
date for the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to June
30, 2022. Legislative Audit reviewed the activities of the
ABC Board and determined the board was effectively serving
the public by controlling the manufacture, barter,
possession, and sale of alcoholic beverages in the state.
She noted that two changes were made to the original bill
in previous committees. She elucidated that one change
related to the authority of the director of the Alcoholic
Control Board, which prohibited the director from voting on
a matter before the board. The other change repealed the
statute related to the application of precedent for
decisions made by the ABC Board.
2:23:32 PM
Senator Stevens MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS1281\U.4,
Bruce, 4/14/18, (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to terms of office for members
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;"
Page 1, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Section. 1. AS 04.06.030 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(d) A member who has served all or part of three
successive terms on the board may not be
reappointed to the board unless three years have
elapsed since the person has last served on the
board."
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "Section 2"
Insert "Section 3"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Stevens explained the amendment. He stated that it
changed the terms of office on the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board. He pointed to subsection (d) and read the
following:
(d) A member who has served all or part of three
successive terms on the board may not be reappointed
to the board unless three years have elapsed since the
person has last served on the board.
Senator Stevens indicated that the provision "mirrored" the
regulation for the Marijuana Control Board and the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), which operated under
a similar limit. He believed that term limits were a
"heathier" situation for boards and the amendment was not
directed toward any specific board member.
2:24:24 PM
AT EASE
2:24:33 PM
RECONVENED
2:24:55 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested feedback from the ABC board
regarding the amendment.
2:25:06 PM
ROBERT KLEIN, CHAIR, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced that he supported
all the provisions in HB 299 with the exception of the
Section 3 repeal of AS.4.11.537. regarding Application of
Precedent. He explained that the board was required to meet
in each judicial district once per year. He believed that
the geographic differences in the state were significant
and that by not allowing the board to apply Title 4 to the
unique situations in various communities and only adhere to
precedent was not serving the public's interest well. He
noted the problems related to alcohol sales and consumption
in Bethel as an example of a unique situation the board
would need to address soon.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Klein to speak to the
amendment. Mr. Klein disagreed with the term limit
amendment and commented that he had served on the ABC board
under 5 or 6 governors and felt that he offered a unique
historical perspective. He wondered how the amendment
served the public's interest. Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked
that she valued his perspective and service on the board.
2:28:33 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Ms. Stidolph whether the bill
sponsor supported the amendment. Ms. Stidolph replied that
Representative Wool supported the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
2:29:41 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered that she had heard legislators
relate concerns over how the Alcohol and Marijuana Control
Office (AMCO) was interacting with individual business
establishments and that the application of rules shifted
and changed with every change in board leadership. She
advised Mr. Klein of the "consternation" among legislators
about the ABC board especially related to the issue of
precedent. She informed Mr. Klein about a legal opinion
related to the Application of Precedent and noted that
three areas of concern were identified. She elaborated that
one related to equal protection and due process concerns.
The second item addressed the effect of repealing AS
04.11.537. She read from the Memorandum from Legal Services
dated April 30, 2018 (copy on file):
Equal protection and due process concerns. You asked
whether AS 04.11.537 is unique to the ABC Board and
whether AS 04.11.537 raises any constitutional
problems. It appears that no similar provision exists
in the statutes for any other board, including the
Marijuana Control Board under AS 17.38. It is my
opinion that this language could present due process
and equal protection problems by allowing the ABC
Board to treat similarly situated licensees
differently and potentially give different punishments
for similar violations.
Effect of repealing AS 04.11.537. You also asked, if
AS 04.11.537 were repealed, would the ABC Board have
the flexibility to consider differences in location
and changes in a community over time when issuing a
decision on a license. In short, repealing AS
04.11.537 would not require the ABC Board to conform a
current decision to a past action that presents
different facts, such as factual differences that
result from long periods of time or geographic
location. However, if AS 04.11.537 were repealed, the
ABC Board would need to distinguish a current decision
from a past action that presents similar facts. You
may wish to inquire with other boards in the state to
determine what types of information these boards
consider when conforming to or distinguishing a
current decision from a past action.
Application of AS 08.01.075(f). You asked whether the
provision in AS 04.11.537 is contrary to the directive
in AS 08.01.075(f), which requires a board to "seek
consistency" in imposing a disciplinary sanction. The
ABC Board is not subject to the requirements of AS
08.01.075(f), which only applies to the boards listed
under AS 08.01.010. However, requiring a board to seek
consistency under AS 08.01.075(f) reflects due process
and equal protection principles and is ultimately a
different policy from AS 04.11.537, which does not
require consistency.
If I may be of further assistance, please advise.
2:33:20 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon determined that the legislature was
asking for the consistent application of rules on behalf of
those being regulated. She requested a final comment from
Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein understood the legal opinion and
comments made by Co-Chair MacKinnon. He replied that the
board endeavored to devise the best solution for a
particular community. He related that when the board held
the forthcoming meeting in Bethel it wanted to hear how the
issue affected the city and villages that surrounded
Bethel. The board would hear testimony from village elders.
He maintained that restricting the board to precedent
encumbered the actions of the board and he was not
supportive of the repeal.
Co-Chair MacKinnon related that she asked legislative legal
whether AS 04.11.537. was unique to the ABC Board and
whether the statute raised any constitutional problems. She
read the response from memo previously cited:
You requested an opinion regarding AS 04.11.537, which
provides that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC Board) is not required to conform to or
distinguish a decision of the board from any action
taken in the past on similar facts. Below is a brief
response to your questions.
Equal protection and due process concerns. You asked
whether AS 04.11.537 is unique to the ABC Board and
whether AS 04.11.537 raises any constitutional
problems. It appears that no similar provision exists
in the statutes for any other board, including the
Marijuana Control Board under AS 17.38. It is my
opinion that this language could present due process
and equal protection problems by allowing the ABC
Board to treat similarly situated licensees
differently and potentially give different punishments
for similar violations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon offered that meting out different
penalties for similar violations was the reason for the
provision in Section 3. She asked for final comments. Mr.
Klein responded that every action the ABC Board took was
subject to judicial review. He thought the "test [of
judicial review] would be applied if the board was causing
harm." He reiterated that the provision prohibited the
board from making situationally appropriate and beneficial
decisions. He was certain the board would continue to
experience situations that were never encountered
previously, and it was the board's duty to craft a proper
solution.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT SCS CSHB 299(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SCS CSHB 299(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN 2(CED).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB219 CSSD Letter to S FIN.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB 299 Additional Backup - Legal Services.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB151 SCS FIN work draft version P.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB151 SCS FIN v. P Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 299 Amendment 1 Stevens.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 151 Legal Services Memo HB 151 v.P.pdf |
SFIN 5/1/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |