Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
04/10/2018 05:00 PM House RULES
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 | |
| SB14 | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING
5:27:45 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting smoking in
certain places; relating to education on the smoking
prohibition; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was HCS CSSB 63(JUD).]
5:28:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L,
Martin, 4/9/18, as a working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO objected.
5:28:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated concern about the "opt out"
provision, the removal of vaping and e-cigarettes, and the
removal of marijuana regulation. He said these issues were
discussed in other committees, agreements were made, and there
was enough support for "the bill as it sits on the House floor."
He stated he does not appreciate the changes under Version L
being proposed at this late date.
5:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD echoed Representative Kito's comments.
5:29:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT spoke about committee process, and he
stated that while he may not agree with the proposed version of
the bill, there is nothing wrong with the process that was used
to create it.
5:30:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, "I lost count awhile back of how
many constituents were asking for some of these exact changes,
so, I'm glad that we're discussing them tonight."
5:30:28 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Claman,
Stutes, Chenault, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to
adopt the proposed HCS for CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L, Martin,
4/9/18, as a working document. Representatives Reinbold and
Kito voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 5-2, Version L
was before the committee as a working document.
5:31:02 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, explained Version L offers three substantive
changes. It would: allow municipalities to opt out and allow
established villages to go through a process to petition for a
self-regulation and opt-out provision; remove vaping and e-
cigarettes from regulation under SB 63; and remove regulation of
marijuana from the purview of the smoke-free workplace bill.
5:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT observed there was no fiscal note
accompanying the proposed legislation.
MS. ENRIGHT responded, "I believe the department is working on
an updated fiscal note, perhaps for the Rules' CS, but I don't
have any reason to believe that these changes would necessarily
add a fiscal cost. I don't know."
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he had been told that. He noted
that someone had written a letter of concern to him. He said
[Senator Micciche], prime sponsor, had told him that the state
would not have to provide signs. Conversely, he cited language
on page 6, line 9, which read as follows:
(c) The department shall furnish signs required
under this section to a person who requests them with
the intention of displaying them.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he does not know what that cost is
but had heard it could be as high as $20,000. He said he would
like to know how much the State of Alaska would have to pay.
5:33:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX indicated that she shares Representative Chenault's
concerns, which were discussed at length in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. She said the bill sponsor has said the bill
has such a light enforcement footprint that it would not cost
the state anything. She said she has many concerns regarding
the proposed legislation and is extending an olive branch by
proposing Version L so that a "reasonable form" of the
legislation can make it to the House floor.
5:34:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for confirmation that under
Version L, vaping and marijuana would be allowed in the
workplace and opt-outs would gut the bill.
5:34:42 PM
MS. ENRIGHT said she would not speak to the third part, because
she said that is a policy call for the committee. She continued
as follows:
But I will say that this doesn't speak necessarily to
every work place; it says that vaping and marijuana
usage are not going to be regulated under SB 63, as it
is currently. There may be other provisions in other
parts of law that can speak to those issues. In fact,
I know that there are pieces of legislation before the
body that address that, but that is what this bill
does: it removes vaping and it removes marijuana from
the purview of this legislation.
5:35:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT proffered that there are a lot of
reasons someone cannot have a tobacco shop next to a mall, for
example, if the ventilation system is shared. He posed a
scenario where "a marijuana place" and "a tobacco place" are
next to each other, and he said, "I don't know what regulations
apply to that."
CHAIR LEDOUX responded, "Well, I guess we have a [Department of
Environmental Conservation] (DEC) that might come up for some."
5:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that there had been discussions
about an opt-in clause, which would have required anybody who
wanted to have a smoke-free workplace to opt in, which would
require each municipality to vote to participate. He clarified
that the opt-out clause means the provision would be statewide
except for those municipalities that vote to opt out. He said
he doesn't think it would gut the bill.
5:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD ask if the opting out would have to be
done via election or formal voting process.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered yes.
5:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0024\L.1, Martin, 4/10/18, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 16 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this
section, an individual may smoke at
(1) a private club if the private club
(A) has been in continuous operation at the
same location since January 1, 2017;
(B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic
beverages; and
(C) is not a place of employment; or
(2) a business or place of employment that
is
(A) operated or staffed entirely by
volunteers;
(B) a sole proprietorship; or
(C) operated or staffed entirely by the
immediate family members of the owner; in this
subparagraph, "immediate family member" means a
spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent,
grandchild, stepparent, stepchild, or stepsibling."
Page 12, line 12:
Delete "or works for a business as a volunteer
without compensation"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 1. He said if
Amendment 1 passes, he would gladly [not offer] Amendments 2 and
3. He said some people have accused SB 63 of being a bill to
ban smoking outright. He said the primary concern of the bill
is to ban smoking in workplaces, because "the relationship
between employers and employees is distinct and significant" and
if employees must, as a condition of their jobs, endure a smoke-
filled workplace, then they are put at a disadvantage. He said
Amendment 1 would remove from the bill "those workplaces that
aren't workplaces" and have no employees. He recommended those
who want to ban smoking outright vote against Amendment 1 while
those who want to protect employees vote for it. He indicated
some examples of situations in which there are no employees:
only volunteers working; a sole proprietorship with no
employees; and only family members working together. He said
Amendment 1 would protect volunteers, because "the volunteer
relationship is ... distinctly different than the
employer/employee relationship."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there are volunteers who smoke and
are willing to "give up their time without any kind of
compensation," and without Amendment 1, those volunteers are
being told, "If you want to smoke then we don't want your
volunteer time; you'll have to go somewhere else." He
concluded, "And if you have a situation where volunteers are all
choosing to smoke and there's no pressure put on anyone to do
so, then I think we should recognize that we do value their time
and their opportunity to serve, and this simply clarifies that
they can continue to do so under this bill."
CHAIR LEDOUX said she supports Amendment 1, because it clarifies
that sole proprietors and volunteers are not covered by the
bill. She offered her understanding that SB 63 is not intended
to ban smoking but to make sure that employees have a healthful
workplace.
5:41:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that Amendment 1 is poor policy and
would not provide any protection of employees. He said under
Amendment 1, when there is a sole proprietor of a bar, anyone
could smoke at the bar.
5:42:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated opposition to Amendment 1, because
she said she doesn't know how such a provision could even be
enforced.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in recognition of the comments that had
been made, offered a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1, which
would - following "a sole proprietorship;" - change "or" to
"and". He said with this change "the situation put forward by
Representative Claman would, in fact, not be the case" and "the
only types of sole proprietorships that we're talking about in
the amendment are those that fall under the other categories."
5:43:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated, "Since that completely resolves
the original concern, I have to conclude ... that the intent is
simply to ban smoking outright, and that is not something that I
support or that my constituents support, so I will be supporting
the amendment."
5:44:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she does not believe that voting no
[on Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1] means smoking would
be banned "in every private place and household and everything."
5:44:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman,
and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Representatives Reinbold, Claman,
and Stutes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3.
5:45:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1.
5:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as
follows:
Page 4, lines 16 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this
section, an individual may smoke at
(1) a private club if the private club
(A) has been in continuous operation at the
same location since January 1, 2017;
(B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic
beverages; and
(C) is not a place of employment; or
(2) a business or place of employment that is a sole
proprietorship and is operated or staffed entirely by
the immediate family members of the sole proprietor;
in this paragraph, "immediate family member" means a
spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent,
grandchild, stepparent, stepchild, or stepsibling."
5:46:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD called a point of order. She said
amendments must be timely, germane, and not dilatory, and she
opined that both Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 [not yet offered]
were dilatory. She asked that Chair LeDoux rule Amendments 1
and 2 out of order.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she did not believe they were out of
order.
5:46:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 2. He said it focuses
on family and sole proprietorships - not on volunteers.
5:46:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated opposition to Amendment 2.
5:46:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman,
and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2.
Representatives Reinbold, Claman, and Stutes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3.
5:47:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as
follows:
Page 4, lines 16 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this
section, an individual may smoke at
(1) a private club if the private club
(A) has been in continuous operation at the
same location since January 1, 2017;
(B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic
beverages; and
(C) is not a place of employment; or
(2) a business or place of employment that
is operated or staffed entirely by volunteers."
Page 12, line 12:
Delete "or works for a business as a volunteer without
compensation"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected and called a point of order.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said, "I'll join Representative Reinbold's
point of order."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that it is clear the amendments
are almost identical. She added, "I do believe this is dilatory
and wasting precious time."
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that the point of order was not accepted.
5:48:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 3. He said it would
focus on volunteers. He stated that if committee members want
to recognize that volunteers are not employees, then he asks
them to support Amendment 3 in recognition that "the focus of
this bill is - as it ought to be - focusing on workplaces and
employees and employers."
5:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated, "There is nothing ... that says
you want to ban smoking outright everywhere." She opined, "So,
once again, that is an absurd ... interpretation, and that is
not how I read this at all."
5:49:14 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman,
and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
Representatives Stutes, Reinbold, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-3.
5:49:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HCS CSSB 63, Version 30-
LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying previous fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
5:50:06 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Chenault,
Reinbold, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to report HCS
CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying previous
fiscal notes. Representatives Stutes and Eastman voted against
it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 63(RLS) was reported out of the House
Rules Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCS SB 14 Version P.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 14 |
| HCS SB14 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 14 |
| HCS SB 14 Letter of Support - Alaska Municipal League.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 14 |
| HCS SB 14 Letter of Support - City Borough of Juneau.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 14 |
| HCS SB 63 Version L.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 63 |
| HCS SB63 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 63 |
| HCS SB 63 Amendments.pdf |
HRLS 4/10/2018 5:00:00 PM |
SB 63 |