Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/26/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB319 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 319-RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS
1:05:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to criminal background
checks for marijuana establishment registrations and renewals;
and providing for an effective date."
1:06:18 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, advised that CSHB 319 changes the
fingerprinting requirements for marijuana registration renewal.
Under current statute, marijuana registration holders are
required to submit a new set of fingerprints on an annual basis,
and this legislation changes that requirement from every year to
every six years. She explained that the annual requirement is
not standard for other industries, although, massage therapy
requires that new fingerprints are submitted after the initial
registration, and there is active legislation addressing the
massage therapy issue. The interest in these proposed changes
originated in the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) due to its Alaska Public Safety Information
System (ASPIN) that provides notice of any changes in the
criminal activity of a license or registration holder who had
previously provided their fingerprints. Due to the fact that
the requirement to turn in a "fresh set" of fingerprint is
currently in place and given the fact that a person's
fingerprints do not change, and their fingerprints were
initially logged into this data base, it is the sponsor's belief
that this requirement is unnecessary, she explained.
1:07:58 PM
MS. HOLLAND advised that the previous version of this bill, as
heard in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, set this
requirement to once every three years, which was an idea
proposed by the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Board. The House
State Affairs Standing Committee decided to amend the three-
years to every six-years and it passed with unanimous support.
She noted that her research into how this issue is handled in
other adult-use legal states found that some states do require
that new fingerprints are turned in; however, most states
include language that the state may require new fingerprints if
there is a demonstrated investigative need. This legislation
removes an unnecessary burden to both industry and the state
without compromising the public's safety, she offered.
1:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Director Erika McConnell,
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, what the fingerprinting
policy would look like in order for marijuana license holders to
be treated the same as alcohol beverage license holders.
1:10:18 PM
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director, Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), advised that AS 04.11.295 is the statute on the alcohol
side, and she paraphrased as follows:
An applicant for applicant for issuance of a license
shall submit fingerprints ... the board may require an
applicant for renewal of a license or a conditional
contractor's permit under this title to submit
fingerprints and pay fees as required by this
subsection."
1:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the law should not read
the same for those in the marijuana industry.
MS. MCCONNELL noted that while both substances are regulated
substances, marijuana is illegal at the federal level and
alcohol is not illegal. She then deferred to Brandon Emmett,
Vice Chair, Marijuana Control Board.
1:11:40 PM
BRANDON EMMETT, Vice-Chair, Marijuana Control Board, advised
that the Marijuana Control Board contemplated this issue during
a previous meeting which was centered around the fact that many
of the people in the marijuana industry and those who voted to
legalize marijuana wanted it regulated like alcohol. Except, he
pointed out, there are still issues surrounding the legality of
marijuana on the federal level and some of the board members
raised concerns. The ideas were that the language reflect what
is in alcohol, and that the registration be every five years.
The Marijuana Control Board settled on a compromise of every
three years which reflected the two sides of the board's
opinion.
1:13:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that the process within
the alcohol beverage industry is that a person is fingerprinted
upon transfer of an alcohol beverage license and the Alcohol
Beverage Control Board may ask for new fingerprints, for
whatever reason and whatever time, but there is no recurring
fingerprinting requirement.
MS. MCCONNELL replied that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct.
1:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that he was trying to
understand how it would be a compromise when part of the
Marijuana Control Board preferred every five years and the other
members preferred using the language used for the Alcohol
Beverage Control Board, which appears to be an even less
restrictive measure. He acknowledged that the legislature had
since changed that, and he asked how three years is a compromise
and what were the arguments against "doing as is done in
alcohol."
MR. EMMETT answered that there definitely was not consensus by
the board members as to whether the language should stay with
the every-year requirement or be essentially open-ended, such as
in alcohol, and after some discussion, three years was the
compromise. He explained that the body of the Marijuana Control
Board is often split on many decisions with robust debate, and
it then comes to some sort of a compromise on most of the
divisive issues.
1:16:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked that the department and the
board flag this issue, and he remarked that marijuana is now
decriminalized and legal. He commented that he would like to
hear a compelling reason as to why there should be a recurring
fingerprinting requirement as opposed to what happens within the
alcohol industry. He asked what the problem a recurring
fingerprinting requirement is solving, besides being a lot of
hassle for a lot of people.
MS. HOLLAND answered that the benefit of a recurring requirement
for submitting new fingerprints is that in requesting those
fingerprints, it triggers a national background check.
Although, she acknowledged, the department has software to track
changes in the criminal activity of registration holders on a
state level, it does not do so on a national level. In the
event a registration holder was involved in criminal activity
outside of Alaska, the department would be unaware of that
activity, she explained.
1:18:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why it is in Alaska's
interest to be aware of any potential criminal activity that a
marijuana license holder might be complicit in outside of
Alaska, and why there is a greater concern on a marijuana
license holder than on an alcohol beverage license holder.
MS. HOLLAND pointed out that marijuana is still illegal on the
federal level, thereby, causing an incentive to be more
restrictive on this industry as compared to alcohol.
1:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked, "What gives if someone is
complicit in federal illegal activity if they hold a marijuana
license nationally." While he realizes that is "sort of bad in
general," he asked whether that endangers the legal or
decriminalized status of marijuana in Alaska if something does
appear on the background check.
MS. MCCONNELL referred to the marijuana statute, AS
17.38.010(b), which read as follows:
(b) In the interest of the health and public safety of
our citizenry, the people of the state of Alaska
further find and declare that the production and sale
of marijuana should be regulated so that
(1) individuals will have to show proof of age
before purchasing marijuana;
(2) legitimate, taxpaying business people, and
not criminal actors, will conduct sales of marijuana;
and
(3) marijuana sold by regulated businesses will
be labeled and subject to additional regulations to
ensure that consumers are informed and protected.
MS. MCCONNELL explained that later on in the statute, it clearly
states that certain criminal acts, certain felonies, and certain
misdemeanors are disqualifying situations for people to hold a
marijuana license. On the alcohol side, she explained, the
board has the discretion to evaluate a criminal act on the part
of an applicant or licensee and make a determination whether to
allow that person to become a licensee. She reiterated that on
the alcohol side it is at the discretion of the board, on the
marijuana side there is statutory language directing that
certain types of criminal actors are not to be licensees.
1:20:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that someone walk the committee
through the process by which the fingerprinting and background
checks take place.
MS. MCCONNELL responded that part of the application process
includes a number of different forms, a set of fingerprints, and
a set of fees. Once all of those things are submitted to the
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, it begins the process.
The actual fingerprints are transferred to the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to perform the national criminal background
check and it then provides DCCED with a report of the results of
that check.
1:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that someone provides the
Marijuana Control Board with a copy of fingerprints "they may
have obtained somewhere else," submits all of the forms, her
office processes them and sends [the fingerprints] to the
authorities to perform the national check.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman was suggesting
that a person could sit in their home and fingerprint
themselves, or was he saying that DCCED chooses the third-party
vendor.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DCCED performs the act of
fingerprinting at its office, or whether it accepts the
fingerprints from another source.
MS. MCCONNELL answered that the fingerprinting is performed on
the appropriate form by third-party businesses and the list of
those third-parties are located on the department's website.
1:23:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that when a person becomes a member of the
Alaska Bar Association (ABA) their fingerprints are taken one
time and never again. He commented that the only reason to
request the fingerprints here is to trigger the national
background check.
MS. HOLLAND replied that Chair Claman was correct, the purpose
in obtaining the new fingerprints is to trigger the national
background check.
1:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the fee relates to the
background check, and whether it is simply of the cost for the
state to perform that background check.
MS. MCCONNELL answered that a $47 fee was set by DPS, and DCCED
collects that fee and transfers it to DPS through a Reimbursable
Services Agreement (RSA). She then deferred to someone from DPS
to explain that particular fee.
1:25:17 PM
GARY LEE, Criminal Justice Planner, Division of Statewide
Services, Department of Public Safety, answered that the $37 fee
is a direct charge to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
and $10 is a processing fee to digitize the prints and prepare
them to send to the FBI.
1:25:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that a person's Alaska crime
would appear [in ASPIN] without performing this additional
fingerprinting or background check. In the event someone ran
afoul of federal laws with regard to marijuana, would that
information be transmitted to the state, or with this additional
background check and fingerprinting, "is that what would help us
to figure that out?"
MR. LEE explained that the Alaska Public Safety Information
System (ASPIN) only records state charges, and if it was a
federal charge, Alaska would have no visibility of it unless an
additional national fingerprint database check was conducted.
1:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the fingerprinting
requirements in the State of Alaska require one full-time person
or more. He further asked the anticipated administrative burden
associated with the marijuana industry and fingerprinting, and
whether it has required bringing on additional capacity with
this new industry coming online. He requested that Mr. Lee
disregard the recurring fingerprints question, he simply would
like a sense of the requirements of the operations.
MR. LEE answered that the fingerprinting division employs four
people and they process all of the cards, and there are more
people in the records section that handle the cards as they come
in. It is "very broad based," and massage therapists,
attorneys, and any number of people go through the process. The
number of new or changed applicants through the marijuana
industry is insignificant and it has not caused any additional
personnel staffing.
1:28:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSHB 319.
1:28:55 PM
PAUL DISDIER, General Manager, Fireweed Factory LLC, offered
that Fireweed Factory, LLC is a state licensed cultivating
facility and it has a retail store in Juneau. He advised that
nine LLC members encompass the Fireweed Factory and it is a
burden every year to make sure all of the members have their
fingerprints taken, get the paperwork back to him, and then send
everything to the state to have its license renewed. The
requirement is usually during the summer and last year was the
first time "we went through this" with one of its LLC members
being in Europe and another member on vacation with their
children. This year, he said, he has already notified all of
the LLC members to begin the process. In the event this
requirement was to be extended to ten years, six years, three
years, or whatever, it would certainly be less of a burden than
every year. It was his estimation, he offered, that the
Fireweed Factory LLC probably had more LLC members than other
marijuana entities in this state. Funding for marijuana
businesses usually takes place under a group of investors with
the same type of problems his company experiences every year.
He related, that he would appreciate it if the committee would
consider changing it from "three to something."
1:31:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the applications Mr. Disdier
submitted on behalf of himself and others and asked whether any
of those applicants had been denied due to something on the
background check.
MR. DISDIER answered that everyone in his LLC had no previous
legal problems and the fingerprinting passed through "just
fine." The investors in Fireweed Factory include an attorney
and the husband of a doctor, and he opined that the committee
will see that those types of people are the types of people
investing in this industry. He pointed out that [this process]
makes one feel like they are still outlaws in a way, "where you
don't trust us, we want to make sure every year that you're not
doing any kind of illegal activity." While, he said, he
understands the reason for that requirement and he does not want
to see any illegal activity coming into this industry, but the
committee can trust a lot of the people who have invested in
this business.
1:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether he was aware of any other
competitors in this industry in Alaska who applied and was
turned down due to the background check.
MR. DISDIER replied that he has not heard of a single person.
1:33:20 PM
JANA WELTZIN, Attorney, Counsel to Hoban Law Group, advised that
she represents a good amount of the marijuana industry and
"we've done" probably 70 plus applications and nothing has been
rejected for purposes of someone not having the correct criminal
history. She related that she has companies with up to 20
investors and wrangling up a two-week timeframe in order to
obtain fingerprints and perform its renewal applications in the
middle of summer is "kinda tough." She offered hope that the
House Judiciary Standing Committee passes this piece of
legislation because it would help the industry to move more
fluidly. In echoing the previous speaker, she concurred with
not treating these legitimate businesses so much like criminals
wherein they must be checked every 12-months to see if anyone
had gotten into any trouble.
1:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she would have an
objection if the industry were treated the same as the alcohol
industry for the purposes of checking criminality and
fingerprint checks. In that regard, the Marijuana Control Board
could require checks whenever it preferred, and all transfers
would require checks, but no assumed recurring fingerprint
requirement.
MS. WELTZIN said she would not object other than as to the point
of optics because the goal is to not encourage any federal
intervention activity in the State of Alaska. In the event the
fingerprint requirement was completely deleted, which is not
exactly what Representative Kreiss-Tomkins asked, but making it
discretionary could give a bit more leverage to the federal
government to step in and advised that "you guys" are not being
proactive in making sure these licensees do not have felonies.
In the event a couple of examples of that actually took place,
it would be "really negative on our ability" to keep this
industry independent and completely state regulated, she
explained.
1:35:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that she had made a good
point which, in turn, brought into focus previous testimony. He
asked her thoughts about making the requirement every ten years.
MS. WELTZIN said that every ten years would be fine, and six
years is fine, although, a lot could happen every ten years but
she guessed she did not have too much of an opinion between six
years and ten years. She opined that at the point a person
enters into the market, they should have their fingerprints and
background checks for the transfer, and that possibly every ten
years is a good marker to reevaluate someone's criminal history
and remain compliant. Possibly, she suggested, every year the
person could attest through a written affidavit that they [had
not been involved in criminal activity], and that might be a
good way to keep the federal government from interfering with
Alaska's market, she mused.
1:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether she would want those
involved in the marijuana industry to be more frequently
background checked than attorneys, or the same.
MS. WELTZIN responded that attorneys "have way more lee-way,"
sometimes more than they should. They have a fiduciary duty to
their clients, they are officers of the court, and attorneys
should undergo a background check more often than currently.
Attorneys certainly get into more trouble than the marijuana
businesses, over all, she opined.
CHAIR CLAMAN mused that some of the attorneys get into trouble
by joining the legislature.
1:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked that, as a legal representative of
licensees, are there any disqualifying misdemeanors that can
prevent a licensee from being renewed or cause them to lose
their license.
[MS. WELTZIN asked for a few minutes to research the question.]
1:38:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) background checks locate felonies and not
misdemeanors. Only felonies are uploaded into NCIC unless
"we're doing something brand new." In the event there are
disqualifying misdemeanors, there is a state-by-state check, but
that is "very exhaustive and time intensive" and he asked
whether the DPS person could respond. If, in fact, one of the
purposes for the background check and finger printing was to
identify all disqualifying offenses, he said that he did not
think the standard NCIC background check "is doing it."
MS. WELTZIN clarified that she thought the question was whether
there are any disqualifying misdemeanors in the statute and
answered that there are (audio difficulties) subsection (c),
misdemeanor crimes involved in a controlled substance, violence
against a person, (audio difficulties) or dishonesty (audio
difficulties) within five years or (3) has (audio difficulties)
two years before sending the application if convicted of a class
A misdemeanor. Therefore, she commented, it appears that if the
federal background checks do not pick up on these misdemeanors,
it would be tracked by the state-by-state checks the previous
witness had mentioned.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Lee could confirm that nothing
has changed since Representative Kopp was involved in law
enforcement.
MR. LEE answered that Representative Kopp was basically correct,
the national records do indicate if there is a record, that it
can point to the state it originated. In order to do a full
background check, a person would have to inquire of each state
that the federal database reported it has a record of an
individual.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the federal record would show another
state's felony and if there was a misdemeanor in that state, it
would not list what the misdemeanor was, it would just reflect
the misdemeanor charge and then Alaska would have to follow up
with that other state.
MR. LEE advised that Chair Claman was correct, but it is through
the National Communications System, there is a message
transmission to pull up the digitize data records, and a person
does not have to actually call that state.
1:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that follow-up takes place
automatically, or whether something else must take place in
order to trigger that follow up. Under the state's current
process for these licenses, if a person applies for a license in
Alaska and 20-years ago they had a misdemeanor on their record
in some other state, he asked whether the board would have
access to what that misdemeanor was so it could rule that the
misdemeanor was not disqualifying.
MR. LEE answered that the full background check would inquire of
the state the misdemeanor originated in to determine the charge
and its disposition.
1:42:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on CSHB 319.
[HB 319 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Vote 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB316 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver O 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Updated Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Additional Document-Legislative Research Report Convicstions for Marijuana Possession 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 HJUD Final Votes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB319 ver D 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Summary of Changes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-AMIA Letter 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-NCSL Report 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-Marijuana Control Board Minutes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |