Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2016 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB145 | |
| SB147 | |
| SB170 | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the regulation of firearms and
knives by the University of Alaska."
9:40:34 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute
for SB 174, Work Draft 29-LS1306\I (Martin, 3/29/16).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OJBECTED for discussion.
JOE BYRNES, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, read from summary of
changes (copy on file):
Page 2
Under AS 14.40.173(b) which adds exceptions of how the
Board of Regents may regulate the possession,
ownership, use, carrying, registration, storage, or
transportation of concealed handguns or knives
Removed:
· When the behavior of a student or an employee
demonstrates that the student or employee poses a
risk of harm to self or others [Version N, Page 2,
lines 5-6]
· In university facilities where health services,
counseling services, or other services related to
sexual harassment or violence are provided [Version
N, Page 2, lines 8-9]
· In university facilities during adjudication of
staff or student disciplinary issues [Version N,
Page 2, lines 10-11]
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that some of language had been
moved to another section and had not necessarily been
removed from the legislation.
9:42:38 AM
Mr. Byrnes continued to read from the summary of changes:
Page 2, Line 8
From the language which allows the Board of Regents to
adopt and enforce policies regarding openly carried
firearms, removes the terms "possession," "ownership,"
"use," "registration," "storage," "transportation,"
and "knives"
Page 2, Lines 15-18
In the language which allows the Board of Regents to
adopt and enforce policies restricting possession of
firearms and knives in "restricted access areas"
(defined on page 4), adds the words: "which may
include university-designated rooms where sexual
assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence are
investigated and victim assistance is provided and in
university-designated rooms during adjudication of
staff or student disciplinary issues and disputes"
Page 2, Lines 21-31 and Page 3, Lines 1-2
Adds a new subsection that specifies if the Board of
Regents adopts a policy regulating concealed carry in
dormitories, it must require:
1. If the person is not a resident of the dormitory,
the owner shall carry the handgun at all times
2. If the person is a resident of the dormitory:
a. The handgun is stored in an owner provided
lockbox at all times he or she is not
carrying the handgun
b. The owner is responsible for ensuring the
storage is in compliance with state law
c. The owner may not leave the handgun in a
lockbox unattended in a dormitory room for
more than one day
d. The owner must declare to the university
that the owner intends to keep the weapon in
the owner's dormitory room
9:44:17 AM
Mr. Byrnes continued to read from the summary of changes:
Page 3, Lines 3-11
Specifies that the university may privately collect
and store (for not more than a year) information
regarding a student who intends to keep a weapon in
the student's dormitory room. The university may use
that information when making housing decisions for
students who expressed they don't want to share a
dormitory room with a person who possesses a firearm.
The university may not segregate students who intend
to keep a weapon in a dormitory room to a separate
building, floor, or area of the university.
Page 3, Lines 16-19
Specifies the university may not require written
permission before a person may possess a firearm on
campus and they may not adopt implied consent policies
regarding restricted possession of concealed handguns
or knives
Page 3, Lines 30-31
Adds a definition of "lockbox" to mean: a metal, hard-
sided container designed to enclose or encase handguns
with a built-in locking mechanism.
9:45:24 AM
Senator Dunleavy read from page 2, line 1 and page 2, line
7 respectively:
The Board of Regents may not regulate the possession,
ownership, use, carrying, registration, storage, or
transportation of concealed handguns or knives,
except...
(2) in student dormitories or other shared living
quarters; or
Senator Dunleavy asked if the bill language on line 25 ["is
not a resident of the dormitory, the owner shall carry the
handgun at all times;"] prevented the university from
coming up with a regulation banning it from the dorm.
Mr. Byrnes read language on lines 21 and 22 stated "If the
Board of Regents adopts a policy under (b)(2) of this
section, the policy must require that, if the owner of a
concealed handgun..." The subsection listed subsequent
requirements.
Senator Dunleavy referred back to the language he had read
from page 2, line 1 and page 2, line 7. He questioned
whether the Board of Regents could ban handguns outright as
a result of Section (b)(2).
9:47:01 AM
Co-Chair Kelly thought that Senator Dunleavy was pointing
out that under subsection (d) the legislature determined
how the Board of Regents may regulate, which was consistent
with the major portions of the bill.
Mr. Byrnes emphasized that the language in subsection
(b)(2) allowed an exception to how the Board of Regents may
regulate concealed weapons. He elaborated that if the board
adopted the regulations they were required to conform with
the language in subsection (d) beginning on page 2, line 23
through page 3, line 4.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked why the bill did not include an
effective date. She was concerned about a university's
ability to implement appropriate student safety policies in
time if the bill was adopted during the current semester.
She detailed there were summer semesters where universities
may have fewer students on campuses. She mentioned the fall
semester of 2017.
Mr. Byrnes stated that initially the bill had contained a
delayed effective date that would have theoretically
extended the effective date of the bill to 120 days after
the bill signing. The language had been removed in the
Senate Education Committee. He explained the language had
been removed to prevent a delay of a student's ability to
possess a handgun on campus. The bill sponsor's expectation
was the university would adopt conforming policies
accordingly.
9:49:27 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the Board of Regents met on a
monthly or quarterly basis.
Co-Chair Kelly responded that the Board of Regents met six
times per year and also met via teleconference throughout
the year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon had a concern that there was no
effective date. She reasoned if the legislature was going
to change policy the university needed to be given an
opportunity to put the policy in place.
9:50:01 AM
Senator Hoffman referred to page 2, line 31 and wondered
why there was a specification that a handgun may not be
left unattended in a dormitory room lockbox for more than
one day. He opined it would be very difficult to prove the
timeframe.
Mr. Byrnes answered that one of the concerns the university
had raised with weapons being inside dormitory rooms was
related to the possibility of theft. By limiting the
presence of a handgun inside a lockbox to one day, it
decreased the likelihood the handgun could be stolen if a
student was away for a prolonged period of time. The
language was designed to ensure a student handgun owner was
accountable for the weapon and that the weapon was
accounted for at all times.
Co-Chair Kelly thought it was important that gun owners
were expected to be responsible and in possession of the
gun as much as practically possible. He noted that
sometimes students left campus for extended periods (e.g.
due to a death in their family). The goal was to prevent a
situation where the gun was in a dormitory, not in control
of the owner, for prolonged periods of time where it could
be stolen or used by others. He thought that the one day
requirement was fairly strict, but it was not strict in the
gun world where a person was expected to be in control of
the weapons they own.
9:52:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon knew that other college campuses allowed
guns on campus, and wondered how the bill deviated or
conformed to the law in State of Utah.
Mr. Byrnes conveyed that 8 different states had laws
requiring public institutions and public universities to
allow students or faculty to carry concealed weapons on
campus. Additionally, over 150 college campuses had
policies that allowed concealed carry on campus - he noted
it may not be public institutions. He noted that of the 8
states, the policies in Oregon and Colorado had been
instituted judicially when the courts found that university
gun bans were in conflict with concealed carry laws in the
state. In places the law had been instituted legislatively,
there were different carve outs depending on the
jurisdiction. He explained that similar to SB 174, Utah
allowed for restricted access areas on campus, which were
designated by the university. He elaborated a university
may select a restricted area, but there was a screening
process in order to ensure the area was weapon free. The
provision was across all public buildings and was inclusive
of Utah's universities. He stated that in other places it
was people that carry concealed handgun licenses or permits
depending on the jurisdiction.
Mr. Byrnes continued that the systems were not completely
analogous all the way through; they all allowed some form
of concealed carry on campus, but the mechanisms differed
between jurisdictions.
9:54:49 AM
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated that with 150 campuses in 8
states there were all different laws. The point of SB 174
and some other campuses outside Alaska had been concerned
about dormitories, sexual assault, and other. The bill
tried to accommodate the university, which had common
complaints with other universities who carry out the same
mission. He relayed it would be difficult to answer how the
other universities dealt with the issue because there were
150 campuses and each state had different laws. He
concluded it would look different in each state.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if there was any commonality
with different state laws regarding dormitory storage of
handguns. He understood Senator Hoffman's point that the
one-day requirement was unenforceable. He also understood
the intent of the requirement. He wondered how successful
programs had been related to dorm storage.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that currently "they just say 'don't
do that.'" He thought it was currently unenforceable. They
were relying on that law-abiding gun owners would obey the
regulations as they were currently expected to obey. There
really was no enforcement currently. He reiterated that
essentially there was merely a sign specifying not to do
something. The genesis of the bill was that "bad guys
ignore those signs and the good guys do." The bill would
enable the university to regulate. He supposed any time
requirement would be difficult to enforce because it would
be hard to prove; however, there was currently no other way
of enforcement either.
9:57:14 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to page 3, lines 12 and 13:
The Board of Regents, the University of Alaska, and
any officers, employees, or agents of the University
of Alaska may not
(1) except as provided in (e) of this section, create
a database or registry of persons who possess a
firearm on campus;
(2) require written permission before a person may
possess a firearm on campus; or
(3) adopt an implied consent policy regarding
restricted possession of concealed handguns or knives.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how the university would
implement the policy (without a database) related to when a
student requests not to be near another student with a gun.
Mr. Byrnes stated that the bill was drafted to be self-
consistent by Legislative Legal Services. Language about
how the university may collect and store the information
was included on page 3, lines 3 through 11. The intention
was to balance an individual's privacy (who chose to carry
a handgun on campus) with the need of the university to
make housing decisions for students who may not want to
room with a person in possession of a handgun. The
intention of the language on lines 3 through 11 was to
create an exception.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the idea was to keep the
university from creating a gun registry. He detailed if the
university was able to keep the data, over time it would
essentially be keeping a database of gun ownership, which
was not his intent. However, there were some unique
circumstances particularly in dormitories the universities
needed to be able to manage the situation when people did
not want to room with people with guns. The exception was
allowed for a period of time - included in subsection (c).
9:59:44 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought there was a contradiction in the
bill language. She questioned whether subsection (c) would
supersede subsection (f). She detailed subsection (f)
specified the university may not create a database. She
supported the concept of destroying the information
identifying individuals who were carrying guns.
Mr. Byrnes referred to language on page 3, line 4,
"regarding a student who intends to keep a weapon" and page
3, line 14, "persons who possess a firearm." He observed it
was perhaps where a split existed. He detailed that by
saying a person intended to carry a firearm did not
necessarily mean they possessed one. He stated the desire
was to protect the privacy of individuals choosing to carry
a firearm on campus.
Senator Dunleavy interpreted the bill language to mean that
incoming college students would be matched with dormitory
roommates via a questionnaire. He considered the
questionnaire as a possible mechanism for matching
students. He furthered it would not be considered a
registry, but a matchup for the dorm. He continued that a
student would not be required to demonstrate they had
registered or otherwise make note they possessed a firearm
on campus. He reiterated he believed the language was
merely to match students with roommates.
10:02:05 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that he would look into the possible
contradiction with Legislative Legal Services to determine
if an inconsistency existed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought Senator Dunleavy had offered a
route that may work effectively.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the CS was ADOPTED.
MIKE HOSTINA, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), provided concerns and
comments. He noted that the CS had removed a provision,
which would have allowed the university to regulate
firearms in cases where a process determined a student or
employee posed a risk of harm to self or others. He
stressed it caused enormous concern because it posed an
obstacle to the university dealing with those very specific
situations (e.g. when a student was suicidal, assaultive,
and other) and left the university with limited options of
excluding the person from campus or trying to obtain a
Title 47 commitment, which was rare. The concern was
significant related to dealing with troubled individuals on
campus, which was a common occurrence. Additionally, the
bill would provide some ability to regulate firearms in
certain areas, but they would be required to be beyond a
secure point where visitors would be screened. The
university appreciated the ability to establish the
restricted areas, but it was unclear what constituted a
secure point. He noted that depending on the outcome it
could be expensive and could mean litigation since the law
was unclear.
10:05:02 AM
Mr. Hostina highlighted concern that because the bill
currently allowed the university to regulate only the
carrying of long guns, it was not clear the university
could prohibit concealed carry of a long gun or storage of
a long gun in a dormitory room. He continued that it was
not clear whether the university may regulate firearms in
dorms. Based on testimony by Mr. Byrnes, he believed the
university would be required to permit concealed handguns
in dorms with only the restrictions in subsection (d) of
the bill.
Mr. Hostina addressed the inconsistency between subsections
(e) and (f). He surmised the discrepancy may be solved
simply by including language "in (f)(1) except as provided
in section (e)."
Senator Dunleavy asked for verification the university
currently allowed guns on campus if they were locked in a
vehicle. Mr. Hostina replied in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy asked for verification that the university
did not currently differentiate between "long guns, short
guns, etcetera." Mr. Hostina agreed.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the university had the ability
to deny an individual the right to have a gun on campus in
their car if the individual was seen to potentially be
problematic (e.g. suicidal, etcetera). He wondered if there
was currently a written policy in place related to guns in
locked car trunks.
Mr. Hostina answered in the negative. He explained state
law prohibited the university from regulating weapons in
cars in parking lots.
10:07:39 AM
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that the secure point language
in the legislation was the same as existing municipal
regulations of firearms in statute.
MATT COOPER, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), expounded on his
colleague Mr. Hostina's testimony. He relayed the Board of
Regents had requested two additional amendments to the bill
including the ability to regulate concealed handguns and
knives in facilities where K-12 students were present and
to add a requirement that a person would be required to
have a state-issued permit in order to carry a concealed
handgun. The two additions were not included in the CS. He
remarked that the terminology used in the bill moved
between concealed handguns and knives, firearms, and
weapons. He detailed the different language created some
ambiguity in places about what exactly was being talked
about under certain circumstances. He thought the committee
may wish to consider how the terms were used throughout the
legislation.
Co-Chair Kelly commented that the committee had heard that
some of the things [in the bill] were unclear; however, he
believed it was clear the people of Alaska were allowed to
carry and the university disregarded the state's
constitution and statutes by specifying people could not
carry on campus. The legislation tried to make as many
accommodations to the university as possible so it could
meet the spirit of the law that allowed Alaskans to carry
weapons. He stressed the committee had adopted a number of
amendments to address the university's concerns. He
reasoned the university was saying that it would not
support the legislation because the committee had not
adopted all of the regent's recommendations. He stated the
university would not support the legislation even if all of
its recommendations were adopted.
Co-Chair Kelly continued that the university did not like
the bill and it wanted the ability to regulate beyond the
constitution and statutes as if it was a separate political
subdivision from the state. He emphasized the university
was not a separate political subdivision. He believed the
committee had successfully compromised, but the university
had not. He stated the university would continue to be
unclear on the legislation and would continue to have
concerns. He reiterated the university did not want the
state to be able to regulate the issue. He elaborated the
university did not want to be regulated and that it fought
the issue at every opportunity.
10:11:21 AM
AT EASE
10:17:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted the public hearing on the bill had
previously been closed.
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Kelly explained the amendment would add an
effective date of August 1, 2016. He detailed the effective
date was consistent with the committee's discussion about
giving the university the time to prepare for the upcoming
semester.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2:
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Kelly communicated the amendment would insert the
words "except as provided for in section (e)" on page 3,
line 13.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained the committee had heard from
the university's legal counsel that if the words "except as
provided for in section (e)" were inserted on line 13 after
the words "may not," it should clear up the inconsistency
between a permanent and temporary record status and would
allow students to be housed away from students with
firearms if they so desired.
10:19:36 AM
AT EASE
10:22:43 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the committee had
discussed students who may have already applied for the
fall semester. She relayed it was the committee's
expectation that if the university had already received
applications it would go back and provide future students
an opportunity to check the box on a form if they planned
to carry a handgun.
Co-Chair Kelly relayed nothing prohibited the university
from managing at that level; if it did, it would become
apparent as the bill moved forward and he would make the
change. He believed it was a reasonable consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. She
directed Legislative Legal Services to make technical and
conforming changes to the conceptual amendments when
drafting the CS.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the one fiscal note from the
University of Alaska. He read a Legislative Finance
Division footnote dated March 14, 2016:
The cost of regulating the carrying of concealed
handguns and knives at the university is
indeterminate. Although the university has projected a
fiscal note of $1.3 million UGF and a services
contract for FY 17 and $800,000 UGF as a steady cost
in the out years, these amounts cannot be verified.
Similar efforts in other state universities project up
to three times the initial amount shown in the UA
fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Micciche relayed the fiscal note was
indeterminate for FY 17 through FY 22, which essentially
meant it was a zero fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon there was a proposal to amend the fiscal
note to zero for FY 17 through FY 22. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered; the fiscal note was zeroed
out by the Senate Finance Committee.
10:25:29 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if there was a legitimate
management cost to the university, the legislature would be
willing to cover the costs in the future. He specified
legitimate meant something the legislature realized was an
appropriate expense related to SB 174.
Co-Chair Kelly did not have objection. He commented that
some universities in other states that had put forth
extremely high fiscal notes, had not ultimately spent that
much to accommodate similar legislation. He noted his
comments were currently anecdotal.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the Legislative Finance
Division had looked at fiscal notes from other states and
concurred that they typically tended to be inflated coming
from the universities.
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to report CSSB 174(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
10:27:22 AM
AT EASE
10:27:28 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Co-Chair Kelly to restate his
motion.
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to report CSSB 174(FIN) as amended out
of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 174(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note by
the Senate Finance Committee for the University.
10:28:08 AM
AT EASE
10:32:28 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon summarized action taken during the
current meeting. She discussed the afternoon schedule. She
reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the week.
Senator Dunleavy asked for details on the schedule for
Wednesday.
Co-Chair MacKinnon complied.
Senator Dunleavy was interested in a specific bill related
to a countermand amendment. He thought it was supposed to
be heard during the Wednesday meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon answered she would look into the
question.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 CS SS SB 91 (FIN) ver F.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 174 CS SB 174(FIN) ver I - Summary of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 174 |
| CS SB 174(FIN) ver I.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 174 |
| CS SB 145 (FIN) ver W.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 145 |