Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/08/2024 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 | |
| SB28 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 28-WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
7:20:08 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 28(FIN), "An Act relating to workplace
violence protective orders; relating to the crime of violating a
protective order; relating to the powers of district judges and
magistrates; amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
7:20:31 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
presented CSSB 28(FIN). He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
When individuals make credible threats of violence
against an employer's worksite or an employee, the
attorney representing the employer may need to file a
civil lawsuit and ask for a temporary restraining
order to protect the business. It can take several
days to complete and obtain the order. In contrast,
people seeking a domestic violence restraining order
can usually get the court order within one day.
Senate Bill 28, modeled after Alaska's domestic
violence protective order process, allows an employer
to file a petition for a protective order against an
individual who the employer reasonably believes
committed an act of violence against the employer or
an employee, or made a threat of violence against the
employer or an employee that can reasonably be
construed as a threat that may be carried out at the
employer's workplace.
Senate Bill 28 will provide employers with a more
effective way to protect their workplace and their
employees from violence carried out by individuals who
pose a known threat. A 2019 report from the US Bureau
of Justice found that 13% of all nonfatal workplace
violence was carried out by someone well-known to the
victim. This rate was up to 20% of nonfatal workplace
violence incidents that involved a female victim.
Additionally, the victim and offender had a current or
prior professional relationship in 25% of all nonfatal
workplace violence incidents.
Eleven states have laws providing for the issuance of
protective or restraining orders that are specific to
workplace violence. Utah is the most recent addition
to this list, which passed a workplace violence
protective order law in 2023.
7:22:48 PM
CLAIRE LUBKE, Staff, Senator Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Claman, prime sponsor of CSSB
28(FIN), presented the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 AS 11.56.740. Violating a protective order.
Amends AS 11.56.740(a) by adding a new subsection (4)
to specify that a person commits the crime of
violating a protective order if the person knowingly
commits or attempts to commit an act that violates the
provisions listed under the workplace violence
protective order statutes.
Section 2 AS 11.56.740. Violating a protective order.
Amends AS 11.56.740(c) by adding the workplace
violence protective order statutes to the meaning of
"protective order."
Section 3 AS 18.65.530. Mandatory arrest for crimes
involving domestic violence, violation of protective
orders, and violation of conditions of release. Amends
AS 18.65.530(a) by clarifying that the mandatory
arrest statute for crimes involving domestic violence,
violation of protective orders, and violation of
conditions of release is subject to the requirements
of section 1 of this bill.
Section 4 AS 18.65.540. Central registry of protective
orders. Amends AS 18.65.540(a) to add the workplace
violence protective order statutes to the central
registry of protective orders maintained by the
Department of Public Safety.
Section 5 AS 18.65.540. Central registry of protective
orders. Amends AS 18.65.540(b) to add the workplace
violence protective order statutes to the list of
protective orders a peace officer enters into the
central registry within 24 hours of receiving.
Section 6 Amends AS 18.65 to add new section: "Article
12A. Workplace Violence Protective Orders."
Sec. 18.65.875. Protective orders; eligible
petitioners; relief.
Section (a) gives employers the ability to file a
petition for a protective order against an individual
who the employer reasonably believes: (1) committed an
act of violence against the employer; (2) committed an
act of violence against an employee at the employer's
workplace; (3) made a threat of violence against the
employer; or (4) made a threat of violence against an
employee that can reasonably be construed as a threat
that may be carried out at the employer's workplace.
Section (b) specifies that the court shall schedule a
hearing and provide at least 10 days' notice to the
respondent.
Section (c) details prohibited behavior of the
respondent after the protective order is issued.
Section (d) describes the court's responsibilities
related to issuing a protective order.
Section (e) clarifies a court may not deny a petition
for a protective order solely because of a lapse of
time between an act of violence or a threat of
violence and the filing of the petition.
Sec. 18.65.877. Ex parte protective orders for
workplace violence. Gives employers the ability to
file a petition for an ex parte protective ordera
temporary order that would grant immediate protection.
Sec. 18.65.880. Modification of workplace violence
protective order. Creates a process for either the
petitioner or the respondent to request modification
of a protective order.
Sec. 18.65.885. Specific protective orders. Specifies
that an invitation by the petitioner or a named
designated employee of the petitioner to have the
prohibited contact or to be present at or enter the
workplace, residence, vehicle, or other place does not
in any way invalidate or nullify the protective order.
Sec. 18.65.890. Forms for petitions and orders; fees.
Clarifies that the court system will prepare forms for
petitions, protective orders, and instructions for
their use by an employer seeking a protective order.
Sec. 18.65.895. Service of process. Clarifies that
protective orders should be promptly served and
executed.
Sec. 18.65.897. Civil liability Creates civil
liability provisions.
Sec. 18.65.899. Definitions Makes the definitions of
"course of conduct," "employee," "employer," "threat
of violence," "violence," and "workplace" apply to the
workplace violence protective statutes.
Section 7 AS 22.15.100. Functions and powers of
district judge and magistrate. Amends AS 22.15.100(9)
by adding a new section (C) to give district judges
and magistrates the power to issue a protective order
in cases involving workplace violence.
Section 8 Uncodified law Indirect court rule
amendments Specifies amendments to: Rule 4, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration, relating to fees and service of
process for a workplace violence protective order; and
Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, by changing
the method for obtaining and the timing of temporary
restraining orders.
Section 9 Uncodified law - applicability Makes section
8 conditional on approval by the two-thirds majority
vote of each house required by art. IV, sec. 15,
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Section 10 Effective Date If section 9 takes effect,
it takes effect on January 1, 2025.
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Lubke to describe the court rule changes.
7:25:03 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN clarified that these amendments would add section
numbers into court rules and wouldn't change any procedures.
7:26:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to clarify whether the bill sponsor
was speaking to the original bill or the 58-page bill.
SENATOR CLAMAN said the version of the bill that passed the
Senate [Version Y] was 9 pages. He clarified that he had not
requested the additional pages in the forthcoming CS [Version
N].
7:27:47 PM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on SB 28.
7:28:03 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, said ANDVSA asked to be included in
the bill because its rural programs are often located in places
with limited law enforcement. She explained that people
sometimes stand right outside shelter property lines to
intimidate staff and victims without technically trespassing or
breaking the law. She said the bill would allow workers to get
a protective order on behalf of their workplace to keep these
people away from their buildings. She said the bill would be of
great benefit to ANDVSA's programs that serve victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault to help provide workplace
safety.
7:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether a protective order could
be sought if someone were standing near a business without
blocking the entrance or behaving violently.
MS. STANFILL stated that people in the business would need to
feel threatened [to warrant the protective order].
7:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that someone who
experienced domestic violence may be afraid of most things. He
asked whether a judge would adjudicate the validity of a
protective order based on a victim's fear.
MS. STANFILL answered yes. She explained that typically,
victims of domestic violence must petition for a protective
order and explain what happened to them. Similarly, should the
bill pass, the director of a domestic violence shelter, for
example, would petition for a protective order on behalf of the
organization and explain the threatening behavior they've
witnessed. The judge would then determine whether that behavior
rose to the reasonable standard in the protective order
statutes.
7:33:09 PM
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on SB 28.
7:33:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed house
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 28(FIN), Version 33-LS024\N,
C. Radford, 5/7/24, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
7:34:03 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 7:34 p.m.
7:35:07 PM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, provided a
summary of changes in the proposed HCS for CSSB 28(FIN),
("Version N") [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Judiciary Committee: Version Y to Version P
SB 28 WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS is designed
to mirror Alaska's domestic violence protective order
process, enabling employers to seek protection against
individuals who pose a threat of violence to their
workplace or employees. SB 28 version Y is maintained
intact in version P.
HB 68 CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Which increases penalties for trafficking offenses,
prioritizes the prosecution of those exploiting
minors, and establishes new crimes to target
individuals who patronize or facilitate sex
trafficking. Moreover, it introduces mechanisms to
vacate convictions for victims of sex trafficking,
recognizing their status as victims rather than
criminals.
HB 259 COUNCIL ON HUMAN AND SEX TRAFFICKING
Which establishes the Alaska Council on Human and Sex
Trafficking permanently through state statute. This
council, initially established by Administrative Order
328, plays a crucial role in raising awareness,
conducting research, and proposing solutions to combat
human trafficking.
HB 358 PROHIBIT AI-ALTERED REPRESENTATIONS
This language prohibits the dissemination of virtual
sexual images of children (Child Sexual Abuse
Material) and was part of HB 358 v.B.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY removed his objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:38:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she was not prepared to move this 58-
page bill forward tonight.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether everything in Version N
fits within the single subject rule.
7:39:37 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:39 p.m. to 7:43 p.m.
7:43:30 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether Version N complies with the subject
rule.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON questioned whether the inclusion of
the three additional bills in Version N fits within the single
subject rule.
7:44:04 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), confirmed that everything in
Version N would fit within the single subject of crime and
criminal procedure or public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD maintained that she needed more time to
review the 58 pages thoroughly.
7:45:24 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 7:45 p.m.
7:45:49 PM
CHAIR VANCE noted that the previous fiscal notes would be
updated.
7:45:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Allard, and Vance voted in favor of adopting Version N
as the working document. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
against it. Therefore, Version N was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
7:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 1 Version N,
labeled 33-LS0242\N.1, C. Radford, 5/8/24, which read:
Page 47, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) At least four of the public members
appointed to the council under (a)(1) of this section
must have previously received or have been qualified
to receive services from an organization wholly or
partially funded by the Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault."
CHAIR VANCE objected.
7:46:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reminded the committee that Version N would
establish a council on sex trafficking. He said Amendment 1
would ensure that at least four of the 17-member council had
lived experience with domestic violence or sexual assault to
ensure that they are informed by personal experience.
7:48:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned how this provision would be
enforced. He asked whether members would be required to share
personal information to comply with the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his belief that it would be something
discussed in private with the director, and that people serving
on this type of commission should feel comfortable talking about
their lived experience. He said his hope was to ensure that 17
people with no lived experience were not dictating policy in
this particular realm.
CHAIR VANCE pointed members to page 46 of Version N, which spoke
to the membership on the 17-member council. She shared her
understanding that lived experience was already sought after on
these councils.
7:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that it would be cruel and
insensitive to ask a person whether he/she had been violated or
abused, and to require that for board eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that his intent was to ensure that
the most important voices are heard, as opposed to executive
branch officials who were assigned to the committee.
7:55:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD pointed out that sexual assault and abuse
does not discriminate against people in high positions. She
said she would not be supporting Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Purinton to describe the council's current
membership and function.
7:58:00 PM
LISA PURINTON, Director, Statewide Services Division, Department
of Public Safety (DPS), explained that because of its large
membership, some members would be more participatory than
others. Nonetheless, she said the group is a committed group
that has done a significant amount of work to put together
recommendations and listen to advocacy groups and trafficking
victims.
CHAIR VANCE said as an ex officio member of the governor's
Council on Human and Sex Trafficking, she was impressed with
members' engagement. She assured the committee that the intent
of Amendment 1 had already been woven into the direction of the
council.
8:02:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:02 p.m. to 8:05 p.m.
8:05:40 PM
CHAIR VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [2] to Version N
to replace subsection "(f)" with the letter "(g)" on page 29,
line 26.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion.
8:06:21 PM
MR. BALLINGER explained that Conceptual Amendment [2] would fix
an error in current statute to reference the penalties in
subsection (g) instead of (f).
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment [2] was adopted.
8:07:03 PM
CHAIR VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [3].
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIR VANCE said Conceptual Amendment [3] would delete the
reference to AS 12.40.110 on page 50, line 15 of Version N, as
there are no references to grand juries in the underlying bill.
MR. BALLINGER credited the Department of Law (DOL) for this
change, which would remove a repealer that's not addressed in
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment [3] was adopted.
8:08:23 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought further questions on Version N, as amended.
8:08:36 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:08 p.m.
8:09:43 PM
CHAIR VANCE requested a motion from Vice Chair Allard.
8:10:04 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:10 p.m.
8:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to report HCS CSSB 28(FIN),
Version 33-LS024\N, C. Radford, 5/7/24, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 28(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 28 - Proposed CS v.N.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SB 28 |
| SB 28 - Summary of Changes v.Y to v.N.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SB 28 |
| SB 28 - Amendment #1 (N.1) by Rep. Gray.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SB 28 |