Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/25/2022 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB133 | |
| SB229 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 229-STATE HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS; CRIMES
4:24:38 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 229 "An Act relating to
misconduct involving confidential information; relating to
artifacts of the state; and relating to penalties regarding
artifacts or historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources
of the state."
[CSSB 229(JUD) was before the committee.]
4:25:40 PM
RICKY GEASE, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
the Office of History & Archaeology, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation are responsible for administering the
programs in the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. He related
that SB 229, also known as the artifacts bill would amend the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act and the criminal code to
provide protections for historic artifacts through increased
penalties for violations of the act. He said a class C felony
was added as a penalty for a person who, without a permit,
intentionally excavates artifacts from a site with the intent to
sell, but other offenses remain a class A misdemeanor. The bill
amends the civil penalty section by adding a provision for
restitution for damaged and vandalized sites. The department's
goal is to protect Alaska's heritage resources. He offered his
view that the bill would act as a deterrent for unauthorized
actions.
4:27:20 PM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief, History & Archaeology/State Historic
Preservation Officer, Office of History & Archaeology, Alaska
Historical Commission, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, presented
the committee substitute (CS) for SB 229. She paraphrased
remarks, which read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The committee substitute is a complete re-do of the
bill. A primary intent of the bill is to enhance
protections for historic and archaeological sites
through increased criminal penalties for violations of
the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Earlier versions of the bill relied on market value of
artifacts to distinguish between a felony and a
misdemeanor. Instead of market value of looted
artifacts, this bill focuses on violations of the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act and the level of loss
of scientific information caused by violations of the
Act through intentional actions and the intent to sell
artifacts.
This orientation of the bill fits more closely with
the policy of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
The first sentence of the Alaska Historic Preservation
Act reads: It is the policy of the state to preserve
and protect the historic, prehistoric, and
archaeological resources of Alaska from loss,
desecration and destruction so the scientific,
historic and cultural heritage embodied in these
resources may pass undiminished to future generations.
4:29:08 PM
Unauthorized excavation and damage to historic or
archaeological resources destroys the context of the
scientific information contained within that unique
site. Most of the information archaeologists recover
from a site is in the stratigraphic position of the
artifacts and features. Also, the position of
features and artifacts to one another is critical to
understanding a site. If a hearth with charcoal is
found within a site, the charcoal can be dated.
Artifacts associated with the hearth, or in a layer
above or below the hearth can help date and define
distinct cultural eras.
Unauthorized excavation in search of artifacts would
dig right through a hearth feature. That information
is lost forever, once it is disturbed and out of
context.
4:30:09 PM
In the committee substitute a distinction is made at
the penalty level between site disturbance and the
more casual surface collection of artifacts. Removal
of artifacts from a site without a permit with no
ground or site disturbance is a misdemeanor.
Intentional excavation, damage, destruction, or injury
to a site is a class C felony. Also, possessing
artifacts in violation of the Act with the intent to
sell is a class C felony.
Also, in the committee substitute is a provision added
to the civil penalties section that allows for
restitution for damaged or vandalized sites.
Remediation or restoration of a damaged site can take
place by order of the court.
4:31:14 PM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked about the numerous archeologists that
have come to Alaska and acknowledged that Alaska's artifacts
have ended up all around the world in strange places. He
wondered how the department authorizes anthropologists to do
their work without damage to the site.
MS. BITTNER responded that the department authorizes
archeologists to work by issuing a state cultural resources
permit. The permit questions are research related, about the
type of information that the scientist will gather, the extent
of the excavation, and it would require a report. The person
must meet professional qualification standards, which are done
through the permitting process.
4:32:50 PM
SENATOR STEVENS wondered whether excavated artifacts, such as
Native masks, would belong to the state and if they could be
removed and taken out of state or out of the country.
MS. BITTNER answered that a portion of the permit contains a
curation provision. Artifacts and materials removed from the
state belong to the State of Alaska. The division requires that
the artifacts be curated in a state repository. Thus, those
artifacts would go to the museum at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks or the Alaska State Museum in Juneau for long-term
management. If someone wanted to borrow or obtain the artifacts
on loan, they would work with the museum institution.
4:34:21 PM
SENATOR STEVENS thanked her for her years of dedication to the
state.
4:34:27 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the permit for an archeology dig
would be issued as an inclusive permit or for a specific object.
MS. BITTNER answered that the division would typically issue the
permit for a specific site. The artifacts are a portion of the
site. She characterized the archeological site as a three-
dimensional puzzle, and the artifacts are one aspect of it. The
archeologist must have a purpose, such as studying subsistence
practices. The permit requires the researcher to have a
scientific purpose that must also benefit the state to be
considered well-reasoned research. Suppose the office does not
find that the applicant had an adequate reason to conduct the
research, including benefits to the public. In that case, the
department has the discretion to deny the permit for excavating
a site.
4:36:40 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI related a scenario when he was a Boy Scout,
where he and another scout canoed on the Chena River and his
friend pulled a mastodon tusk from a shallow spot. He asked
whether that was illegal.
MS. BITTNER answered yes, that would be illegal. She advised
that the Alaska Preservation Act requires a permit to collect
fossils. She stated that any fossils, including mastodon tusks,
belong to the state. She acknowledged that it is hard to police
that activity, but the department would ask the finder to turn
the fossil over to the state when it is reported. She stated
that it would not be considered an intentional act but one that
the person committed without knowing the Alaska Historic
Preservation provisions.
4:38:16 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that placer miners sometimes find
fossils. He asked whether the miner would be covered under the
self-reporting process. He wondered whether the miner would be
required to pay for damage if the fossil was damaged.
MS. BITTNER responded that the placer miner should set it aside
and report it to DNR.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the current statute for criminal
penalties has ever been exercised.
MS. BITTNER answered that DNR had had some joint exercises with
law enforcement. She recalled a recent one in Fairbanks, where
some artifacts had been collected from state and federal land
that was recovered. It does not happen often, but it does
happen.
4:40:38 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE stated that the transmittal letter states,
"Under the Alaska Historic Preservation Act currently, the word
artifact is not defined. This bill defines artifact." He asked
for the bill reference that defines artifact.
MS. BITTNER answered that the committee substitute (CS) for SB
229, Version O does not have the definition for artifact. The
definition of "historic, prehistoric, and archeological
resources" includes deposits, structures, ruins, sites,
buildings, graves, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of
antiquity which provide information pertaining to the historical
or prehistorical culture of people in the state as well as to
the natural history of the state.
4:41:41 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE cautioned that the committee had not yet
adopted a committee substitute (CS) for SB 229.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE solicited a motion.
4:42:02 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 229, work order 32-GS2541\O, as a working document.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
4:42:39 PM
At ease
4:42:55 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and invited Ms.
Bittner to give the explanation of changes.
MS. BITTNER paraphrased the explanation of the changes from
Version G to Version O which read:
This bill increases penalties for certain offenses
involving artifacts and adds additional civil
sanctions for those who violate the Alaska Historic
Preservation Act.
Section 1
Section 1 amends the "Unlawful Acts" section to make
it a criminal felony for anyone without a permit
to intentionally harm or destroy a historic,
prehistoric or archaeological resources.
Section 2
Section 2 amends the "Unlawful Acts" section to make
it a criminal felony for anyone to possess with the
intent to sell, or offer to sell a historic,
prehistoric, or archaeological resource acquired in
violation of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Section 3
Section 3 adds four new subsections to the "Unlawful
Acts" section.
Subsection (e) and (f) makes it a criminal misdemeanor
for anyone to knowingly possess or remove a historic,
prehistoric, or archaeological resource taken in
violation of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Subsections (g) affirms that the offenses under
sections 1 and 2 are class C felonies.
Subsection (h) defines "knowingly" and "intentionally"
by referring to the definitions in the Alaska criminal
statutes.
4:44:42 PM
Section 4
Section 4 amends the "Criminal penalties" section to
note that violations of the Alaska Historic
Preservation Act not included in Sections 1 and 2 are
misdemeanors.
Section 5
Section 5 adds a new subsection that notes where the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act statutes are silent
on the mental state for a criminal offense, the mental
state will be determined based on AS 11.81.610(b).
4:45:16 PM
Section 6
Section 6 amends the "Civil penalties" section by
adding a provision for restitution for damaged or
vandalized sites. The court can order remediation or
restoration of historic, prehistoric, and
archaeological sites that have been excavated,
damaged, defaced, injured or destroyed in violation of
the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Section 7
Section 7 adds a section to the uncodified law
consistent with State law that the criminal offenses
and penalties provided in this Act may be charged only
after the Act's effective date. (Note: word
"committee" should be "committed"
Section 8 notes the Act's effective date is July 1,
2022.
4:46:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the committee substitute (CS),
Version O, would significantly broaden the items and expand the
felony provisions from Version W. The previous committee, the
Senate Judiciary Committee, considered the penalty provisions.
He asked for the justification for making it a penalty to sell
any historical or natural artifact, regardless of its value. He
acknowledged the importance of protecting valuable historic
sites, Alaska Native relics, and a mastodon tusk. However, this
would include railroad ties and old tiles. He wondered why the
division made that change from Version W.
4:47:45 PM
MS. BITTNER answered that the intent was an attempt to address
the behavior of collecting and destroying the site. She stated
that social media has identified that many people use metal
detectors to locate and subsequently dig up artifacts and sell
them. She noted that the two behaviors together destroy Alaska's
resources.
4:48:39 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE stated that he needs to understand the bill
better. He said Version O seemed to take a very heavy-handed
approach. He expressed concerns that his 12-year-old daughter
would be going to prison for a long time. He stated that it was
not clear what the bill addresses. He offered his view that
every Alaskan family has a little pile of things they have
found. He acknowledged that vandalism was problematic.
4:49:50 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI agreed. He noted that the term "historic" was
used in several sections of the bill, including the class C
felony. He wondered what would be considered historic. For
instance, numerous railroad spikes can be found at the old
railway between the Kennecott Mine and Cordova. He asked whether
that was considered historic. He wondered whether a person could
be charged for possessing railroad spikes.
4:50:56 PM
MS. BITTNER answered that the Alaska Historical Commission
establishes the criteria for identifying historical sites and
applies the criteria through an evaluation process. She noted
that the Alaska statutes have a section that indicates that the
state is entitled to all the historical artifacts on its land.
MS. BITTNER stated that the division would use both in an
evaluation process and determine the context. An isolated spike
taken out of context is not significant. Still, it could be
considered a substantial artifact if it is part of a more
significant archeological or historic site, and people should
leave it in place. She agreed that people might have their pile
of artifacts, which is considered casual removal and is not the
intent or purpose of this bill. SB 229 proposes better
stewardship over Alaska's historic places and leaving artifacts
alone. She emphasized that SB 229 addresses the systematic
destruction, excavation, and vandalism of historic artifacts
with the intent to sell, which DNR would like to deter.
4:53:34 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF wanted to ensure the department wasn't
overboard. She said one's man's junk is another man's treasure.
If a person somehow has the fortitude to travel from Kennecott
to Cordova and picks up discarded railroad spikes or anything
discarded for decades, they could be thanked for cleaning up the
land. She expressed concern that someone who hikes the Chilkoot
Trail and picks up a rusty old tin soup can could be prosecuted.
She acknowledged the importance of preserving arrowheads or
mastodon tusks.
4:54:56 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked why people could walk into a tourist
shop in Juneau and purchase a mastodon tusk or items made from
fossilized walrus ivory. He asked whether it was because those
items were not found on state land.
MS. BITTNER answered that it could be that it is not from state
land. She deferred to the Department of Law to respond.
4:56:06 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska,
responded that the Department of Law would review state and
federal law regarding a mastodon tusk.
MR. ORMAN said he could answer some of the questions that were
raised earlier in the hearing. One of the scenarios raised when
this bill was before the Senate Judiciary Committee was someone
on Sandy Beach picking up something from the derelict Treadwell
Mine, and suddenly the person possessed an artifact. The
committee raised that question in a different context today when
it was related that someone picked up a mastodon tusk when
floating the Chena River. Under the current statute, any
violation of the Alaska Heritage Act would result in a
misdemeanor. The idea of this bill was to differentiate some of
the conduct.
MR. ORMAN stated that one big concern was removing artifacts
intending to sell them. He highlighted that Judy Bittner, Office
of History & Archaeology, would like to value these artifacts,
so it makes sense to differentiate the conduct. Thus, if an
individual intentionally destroys a site or intentionally
collects an artifact with the intent to sell, it represents
conduct the state wants to avoid. Although someone who picked up
railroad spikes or some tiles might be violating the letter of
the law and be subject to a misdemeanor, they would not likely
be prosecuted.
4:58:53 PM
MR. ORMAN stated that the bill added provisions to address more
egregious behavior and serve as a general deterrent. He
suggested Ms. Schroeder, Department of Law, who is present
today, related that only two cases had been brought forward
under the current statute. He offered his view that the
Department of Law has significant discretion. Rather than
yielding some crimes, the idea was to impose penalties to serve
as a deterrent to the public, so people would not dig at a
historical or archeological site without a permit. The bill
might also help with egregious situations, with civil offenses
under [AS 41.35.215] would allow for restoration or remediation
of a site that had been improperly excavated.
MR. ORMAN stated that it is possible to purchase a mastodon
tusk, in some cases, because someone obtained a permit and,
through federal or state law, could reach a point where it could
be sold.
5:00:39 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE responded that it is helpful, but it does
not diminish that a child or adult picking an old bolt from
Sandy Beach could be charged with a misdemeanor, which he found
absurd. He agreed that taking an item from a historic Native
site is one thing but taking a bolt from Sandy Beach is another.
He suggested that perhaps this bill should identify that it is
not a misdemeanor to pick up a railroad spike or bolt. He said
that wading into Cook Inlet and picking up a hollowed-out stone
that may have once been an oil lamp is very different from
prying a carving from an obvious archeological historic Native
site. He offered his view that the department seems to be saying
that the committee should ignore the absurdity part and focus on
the potentially egregious behavior, which is hard to do. He was
unsure if the line was that clear.
5:02:33 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that this is a complex issue. He said
he keeps thinking about the Native artifacts that are thousands
of years old. He recalled the department differentiates the
behavior based on the intent to sell. He offered his belief that
there was nothing wrong with finding and collecting a fossil at
Fossil Beach in Kodiak, but it would be a violation if the
person were selling it.
5:03:13 PM
MR. ORMAN answered that was correct. He stated that the mental
state was essential to consider. It would be challenging to
satisfy the mental state of knowingly for an individual who
picks up something at Sandy Beach. However, the intent to sell
or deface and excavate a site without a permit would constitute
a felony. He offered his view that the conduct pursuant to the
mental state is what legally avoids the potential for some of
the absurd outcomes that members had expressed concern about.
5:04:55 PM
At ease
5:05:17 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and opened public
testimony on SB 229; he found none, and closed public testimony.
5:06:31 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE withdrew his objection; he found no further
objection, and the committee substitute (CS) for SB 229, Version
O, was adopted as the working document.
[VICE CHAIR MICCICHE held SB 229 in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Glenn Haight CFEC Application_Redacted.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Glenn Haight Cover Letter and Resume for CFEC Position_Redacted.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 133 Committee Follow-Up 2.8.22.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 229 Sponsor Statement 3.10.22.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| O.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| UFA Letter of Support for Glenn Haight.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |