Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124

05/17/2021 01:00 PM House 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:21:09 PM Start
01:21:45 PM SB134
02:16:12 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Moved CSSB 134(RES) Out of Committee
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
           SB 134-MASTER GUIDE-OUTFITTER REQUIREMENTS                                                                       
1:21:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR PATKOTAK  announced that  the only  order of business  would                                                              
be CS  FOR SENATE BILL  NO. 134(RES), "An  Act relating  to master                                                              
guide-outfitter  qualifications for  licensure; and providing  for                                                              
an effective date."                                                                                                             
1:22:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  NATASHA VON  IMHOF, Alaska  State  Legislature, as  prime                                                              
sponsor, introduced  CSSB 134(RES).  She explained  that the state                                                              
extended  the Big  Game Commercial  Services  Board (BGCSB)  under                                                              
Senate  Bill 43  in  2019, during  the Thirty-First  Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature.   She  said that  deliberations revealed  frustration                                                              
that  the  board's  disciplinary  actions were  taking  too  long,                                                              
especially  those  pertaining to  master  guides.   She  explained                                                              
that SB 43  required the board to  revoke the license  of a master                                                              
guide  who had  been  convicted of  violating  laws pertaining  to                                                              
that profession;  however, she said, different  interpretations of                                                              
the   wording   of  the   legislation   resulted   in   unintended                                                              
consequences.   The language  in CSSB  134(RES) would  clarify the                                                              
intention   of  ensuring   people  convicted   of  "more   serious                                                              
violations"  of  professional  rules  cannot continue  to  hold  a                                                              
master  guide license.    Specifically,  she said,  CSSB  134(RES)                                                              
would limit the  requirement for automatic license  revocation for                                                              
only serious  violations, defined  as those  where a master  guide                                                              
has been  convicted and sentenced  to more  than one day  in jail,                                                              
or a fine of more than $1,500.                                                                                                  
SENATOR VON  IMHOF stressed  that the  proposed legislation  would                                                              
speed up  the process only  when a person  has been  convicted and                                                              
had a  sentence imposed.   She expressed  that the reason  for the                                                              
condition is  that, while a master  guide license does  not confer                                                              
any  additional  hunting rights,  it  is an  honorary  designation                                                              
given to  registered guides who  have demonstrated a  long history                                                              
of excellence.   Should  a master  guide license  be revoked,  she                                                              
clarified,  the  registered  guide license  could  remain  intact,                                                              
allowing a  guide to  continue working in  their profession.   She                                                              
said that  the effective  date would  be retroactive  to when  the                                                              
faulty   language   was   put  into   place,   thereby   providing                                                              
consistency  while encouraging  self-reporting  and resolution  of                                                              
any small violations.   She said,  "As far as we know,  there have                                                              
not been  any licenses revoked or  issued since that date,  so the                                                              
department  and  our  lawyers  don't  see  any  problem  with  the                                                              
retroactivity  at this time."   She noted  that, with  the hunting                                                              
season  underway, it's  important to  address the  issue soon,  as                                                              
it's causing  tension between enforcement  and guides, as  well as                                                              
being  is a  disincentive for  guides  to come  clean about  small                                                              
1:25:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  PATKOTAK  opened  public   testimony  on  SB  134.    After                                                              
ascertaining  that no  one  wished to  testify,  he closed  public                                                              
1:25:54 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE referred  to  the text  of CSSB  134(RES),                                                              
page 2, lines 4-9, which read as follows:                                                                                       
          (4) has  not been convicted of an offense  under AS                                                                   
     08.54.720(a)  or a similar  law in another  jurisdiction                                                                   
     related  to hunting  or  to the  provision  of big  game                                                                   
     hunting  or  transportation  services  within  the  five                                                               
     [15]  years preceding  the date of  the application  for                                                               
          (A)  the person  was imprisoned  for more than  one                                                               
     day; or                                                                                                                
          (B)  an unsuspended  fine of more  than $1,500  was                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE expressed  his opinion  that changing  the                                                              
requirement  from 15  years to  five  years seems  like a  drastic                                                              
change, and he asked why that decision was made.                                                                                
JULI  LUCKY,  Staff,  Senator  Natasha  von  Imhof,  Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature,  on  behalf  of Senator  von  Imhof,  prime  sponsor,                                                              
explained  that BGCSB  made the  recommendations  in the  proposed                                                              
legislation, and  noted there is  a representative from  the board                                                              
available  to answer  questions.   She also pointed  out that  the                                                              
language  referenced by  Representative  Schrage,  in addition  to                                                              
the  language amended  on  page 2,  lines 23-24,  was  not put  in                                                              
place until SB 43  passed, so the lookback period  was part of the                                                              
initial,  faulty language.   When  the board  went to conform  the                                                              
faulty language to  existing statute, she said, it  was found that                                                              
the  existing statute  for the  registered  guide lookback  period                                                              
was  five  years,   so  the  master  guide  lookback   period  was                                                              
conformed to  match.  She noted  that the 15-year  lookback period                                                              
has  not been  used because  no  master guide  licenses have  been                                                              
issued since SB 43 went into effect.                                                                                            
MS.  LUCKY  then   paraphrased  the  sectional  analysis   of  the                                                              
proposed   legislation,   which    read   as   follows   [original                                                              
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Sec.  1:  Amends AS  08.54.610(b),  which  outlines  the                                                                 
     requirements   to   obtain  a   master   guide-outfitter                                                                   
     license,  to  limit the  violations  that would  make  a                                                                   
     person ineligible to receive a license.                                                                                    
     Specifically,  the   amendment  limits  the   look  back                                                                   
     period  to  five  years  and   would  only  apply  after                                                                   
     conviction   for  an  offense   where  the  person   was                                                                   
     imprisoned  for more than  one day or  there was  a fine                                                                   
     of  more   than  $1,500   imposed.  It  also   prohibits                                                                   
     granting   a  master  guide-outfitter   license   to  an                                                                   
     individual   that   has   had    a   hunting,   guiding,                                                                   
     outfitting,  transporter or  similar license revoked  in                                                                   
     another jurisdiction.                                                                                                      
     Sec.   2:  Amends   AS  08.54.710(k),   which   requires                                                                 
     revocation  of  a  master   guide-outfitter  license  in                                                                   
     certain  circumstances,  to  limit the  violations  that                                                                   
     would  require revocation,  similar to  the language  in                                                                   
     section  one,  to  an  offense for  which  a  person  is                                                                   
     imprisoned  for more  than  one day  or a  fine of  more                                                                   
     than $1,500 is imposed.                                                                                                    
     The Senate Resources  Committee CS added Sections  3 & 4                                                                 
     to the bill:                                                                                                             
     (only change between version I and version G)                                                                              
     Sec. 3  & 4:  Make the bill  retroactively effective  to                                                                 
     September  14,  2019,  which   was  the  date  that  the                                                                   
     sections  above became  law.  The retroactive  effective                                                                   
     date  would provide  consistency for  Master Guides  and                                                                   
     the Big Game Commercial Services Board.                                                                                    
     Since  no licenses  have been  revoked  or denied  under                                                                   
     these  statutes to  date, the  legislation codifies  the                                                                   
     initial intent  of the legislature, and  the legislation                                                                   
     reduces  the types of  violations that  would require  a                                                                   
     revocation,  there are not  ex post facto concerns  with                                                                   
     a retroactive effective date for this bill.                                                                                
1:30:19 PM                                                                                                                    
RENEE  HOFFARD,  Executive  Administrator,   Big  Game  Commercial                                                              
Services   Board,   Division   of   Corporations,   Business   and                                                              
Professional  Licensing, Department  of  Commerce, Community,  and                                                              
Economic Development,  explained that the intent  of CSSB 134(RES)                                                              
is to  "mirror" the eligibility  for licenses under  AS 08.54.605,                                                              
part  of which says  that a  person is  not eligible  to hold  any                                                              
class of guide license  if they've been convicted of  any state or                                                              
federal hunting,  guiding, or  transportation services  statute or                                                              
regulation  resulting  in imprisonment  for  more  than five  days                                                              
within  the previous  five years,  or had an  unsuspended  fine of                                                              
more than  $2,000, $3,000, or $5,000  imposed in the  previous 12,                                                              
36,  and  60  months,  respectively.     A  master  guide  license                                                              
applicant  is required  to have  held a  registered guide  license                                                              
for 15  of the last 20  years in order  to be eligible,  she said,                                                              
so  "no one  would potentially  be eligible  to even  apply for  a                                                              
master guide  license if they've  had a violation within  the last                                                              
15  years.   It would  make  it almost  impossible  for anyone  to                                                              
qualify for that master guide license."                                                                                         
1:31:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  noted that under HB 134,  the lookback for                                                              
any of the  aforementioned disqualifiers is five  years, while the                                                              
requirement  for a  master guide  license is  having a  registered                                                              
guide license  for 15 of  the previous 20  years.  He said  "I can                                                              
imagine  a  situation in  which  someone  is a  registered  guide,                                                              
takes a  five-year break, and  then applies  to be a  master guide                                                              
and  the  lookback doesn't  even  cover  any  time in  which  this                                                              
individual is a  registered guide."  He asked  Ms. Hoffard whether                                                              
she could comment on that.                                                                                                      
MS.  HOFFARD said  that registered  guides are  allowed a  license                                                              
lapse period of only four years, then they have to reapply.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  responded that in that case,  the lookback                                                              
period  could  consist  of  only  one  year  of  registered  guide                                                              
activity.  He  noted his support of the proposed  legislation, but                                                              
expressed  concerns about  having  only a  five-year lookback  and                                                              
said that  he may offer  a conceptional  amendment of 10  years to                                                              
cover an active  portion of the registered guide's  license period                                                              
more thoroughly.                                                                                                                
1:33:54 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN  expressed her concern over  the unsuspended                                                              
fine threshold  of $1,500.  She  said that guides  frequently have                                                              
multiple  violations  with  a  cash  fine  or  less  than  $1,500;                                                              
however, the guide may have forfeited his boat or plane.                                                                        
MS.  HOFFARD responded  that  as  part of  its  research into  the                                                              
possible corrections  under SB 135,  the board inspected  criminal                                                              
actions taken against  guides starting in 2011.   Between 2011 and                                                              
2020,  she   said,  there  were   only  six  master   guides  with                                                              
disciplinary  actions resulting  from  criminal  convictions.   Of                                                              
those 6, she said,  "only two had anything even  remotely close to                                                              
the $1,500"  recommended by the board.   She noted that  the BGCSB                                                              
worked with  the Alaska  Wildlife Troopers  and the Department  of                                                              
Law  to  arrive at  a  figure  which would  result  from  offenses                                                              
egregious  enough  to  meet  that   threshold.    She  offered  to                                                              
research and provide additional information.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HANNAN  asked  for   further  explanation  on  the                                                              
unsuspended fines between 2011 and 2020.                                                                                        
MS. HOFFARD  replied, "They  had one that  it was a  $65,000 fine,                                                              
$30,000 unsuspended.   The other one was a $35,000  fine, and none                                                              
of that was suspended."                                                                                                         
MS.  LUCKY   noted  that  the   supporting  document,   "Big  Game                                                              
Commercial  Services  Board  Minutes of  the  teleconference  held                                                              
February 20,  2020" [included in  the committee packet],  includes                                                              
the six  disciplinary actions.   She clarified  that the  table on                                                              
page 9 shows the details of the disciplinary actions.                                                                           
SENATOR  VON IMHOF  said  that she  would  have  no objections  to                                                              
Representative Schrage's conceptual amendment.                                                                                  
MS.  LUCKY  directed  attention   to  page  9  or  the  supporting                                                              
document, which  lists six  line items  under the heading  "Master                                                              
Guide - Outfitter",  showing revocation of licenses  in line items                                                              
1  and  4,  with  the large  fines  of  $65,000  and  $35,000,  as                                                              
previously mentioned.   She pointed  out that the other  four line                                                              
items  showed fines  of  less than  $1,500,  with no  commensurate                                                              
revocation.    Ms.  Lucky  noted that  she  compiled  the  related                                                              
statutes in a  document [included in the committee  packet] titled                                                              
"Senate  Bill 134  Related Statutes,"  directing  attention to  AS                                                              
08.54.605(1)(B),  which specified  the five-year lookback  period.                                                              
She  said that  the intent  of  CSSB 134(RES)  was  to conform  to                                                              
current statute  as recommended  by the board, thereby  minimizing                                                              
any additional unintended  consequences based on  how the language                                                              
is interpreted.                                                                                                                 
1:40:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HOPKINS  pointed   out  AS  08.54.605(a)(1)(A)(i),                                                              
which read,  "the person  was imprisoned for  more than  five days                                                              
within the previous  five years;" and asked whether  CSSB 134(RES)                                                              
includes the same language.                                                                                                     
MS. LUCKY replied  that the proposed legislation  would specify an                                                              
imprisonment period of  "more than one day."  She  said the intent                                                              
of the  proposed legislation  was to hold  the master guides  to a                                                              
higher standard  than registered  guides.  She directed  attention                                                              
to  CSSB 134(RES),  page  2, lines  24-25,  which  read, "(A)  the                                                          
person  is   imprisoned  for  more   than  one  day;  or   (B)  an                                                          
unsuspended fine of  more than $1,500 is imposed."   She described                                                          
this language  as "narrowing of  the offenses for which  a license                                                              
can be revoked."                                                                                                                
1:41:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS asked  what  would happen  if  there was  a                                                              
single   incident  resulting   in  two   violations  which,   when                                                              
combined, exceeded the $1,500 threshold.                                                                                        
MS. LUCKY deferred to Ms. Hoffard.                                                                                              
MS.  HOFFARD  responded,  "Those   would  be  considered  separate                                                              
offenses, because  it would  be a separate  criminal act  for each                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS  said that the way the  proposed legislation                                                              
is written,  if one  incident included  multiple violations,  each                                                              
of  which  resulted  in  a fine  under  $1,500,  there  would  not                                                              
necessarily be a license revocation.                                                                                            
MS. HOFFARD replied  that such an occurrence would  not trigger an                                                              
automatic  revocation; however,  the  board may  choose to  revoke                                                              
the license based on multiple violations.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS asked  Ms.  Lucky whether  the question  of                                                              
multiple  violations had  been previously  discussed,  and if  so,                                                              
whether discretionary revocation is the right approach.                                                                         
MS.  LUCKY replied,  "Our intent  with this  bill was  to fix  the                                                              
problem."   She said that,  in drafting the proposed  legislation,                                                              
BGCSB, as  the regulator  of the professionals  in the  field, was                                                              
asked for recommendations.   She specified that the  intent was to                                                              
not create  a different  set of statutes  and regulations,  but to                                                              
keep it  as close  as possible  to existing  statutes in  order to                                                              
minimize conflict.   She stressed  that the board has  the ability                                                              
to revoke  any license  as a  matter of  disciplinary action,  and                                                              
that a  single fine  of $1,500  or more  would be  one of  the few                                                              
times  that the  legislature felt  that  an immediate  revocation,                                                              
after   a  court   case  for   a  criminal   violation  of   their                                                              
professional  responsibilities,   was  in  order.    The  proposed                                                              
legislation,  she said,  doesn't limit  or expand  the ability  of                                                              
BGCSB to impose disciplinary actions under existing statute.                                                                    
1:45:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  asked whether the board has  discretion to                                                              
decide  against issuing  a master  guide  license in  the case  of                                                              
multiple violations.                                                                                                            
MS.  LUCKY  replied  that  this  proposed  legislation  would  not                                                              
change the eligibility requirements for master guide licensure.                                                                 
1:47:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  asked Ms. Lucky for a  description of the                                                              
board's process when considering revocation.                                                                                    
MS. LUCKY deferred to Ms. Hoffard.                                                                                              
MS.  HOFFARD  explained  that  in  a  criminal  case,  the  Alaska                                                              
Wildlife Troopers  would notify the  board that charges  have been                                                              
filed against  a license holder.   The board's investigator  would                                                              
notify   the   license   holder   that  the   license   is   under                                                              
investigation;   however,   the  board's   investigation   doesn't                                                              
commence until the  state's criminal proceeding is  concluded.  If                                                              
the  criminal proceeding  results  in a  conviction,  she said,  a                                                              
reviewing board member  would work with the Department  of Law and                                                              
the investigator,  using precedent,  to offer a consent  agreement                                                              
or revocation.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE   RAUSCHER   asked,   "Is   there   anything   that                                                              
constitutes jail time, or is it all probation?"                                                                                 
MS. HOFFARD replied  that the board doesn't have  the authority to                                                              
impose  jail  time,  but  the guide's  license  could  be  put  on                                                              
1:49:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked  Ms. Hoffard whether the board  would conduct                                                              
an investigation if an individual is not convicted of the crime.                                                                
MS. HOFFARD  responded that the  board would still  investigate to                                                              
determine  whether   a  license   holder  committed   any  ethical                                                              
CHAIR PATKOTAK  asked whether there  is any statute  that mandates                                                              
an investigation by the board.                                                                                                  
MS.  HOFFARD replied  that the  board is  required to  investigate                                                              
any   complaint,   which   would   include   a   notification   of                                                              
investigation by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers.                                                                                  
1:51:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                   
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE  explained  that  Conceptual  Amendment  1                                                              
would replace  the word "five"  with "ten" on  page 2, line  6, of                                                      
CSSB 134(RES).                                                                                                                  
CHAIR  PATKOTAK   explained  for   Representative  Rauscher   that                                                              
Conceptual Amendment  1 addresses  the lookback period  for master                                                              
guide licenses.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE said  that  while five  years  is in  line                                                              
with  the  lookback  period  for a  registered  guide  license,  a                                                              
master  guide license  is  a  more prestigious  title  recognizing                                                              
"excellence  over   a  long  history."     He  pointed   out  that                                                              
eligibility  requirements for  a master guide  license state  that                                                              
the applicant  must have  been a  registered guide  for 15  of the                                                              
past 20 years,  with an allowed  lapse of four years,  which could                                                              
potentially mean a lookback period of only one year.                                                                            
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted  that Senator von Imhof  expressed acceptance                                                              
of Conceptual  Amendment 1.   He  then asked  Ms. Hoffard  how she                                                              
would "see this amendment being deployed."                                                                                      
MS.  HOFFARD replied  that  she  has not  had  the opportunity  to                                                              
confer with the  board members and, therefore,  is not comfortable                                                              
speaking for them on this matter.                                                                                               
1:53:56 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY  opined that adopting Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                              
would "neuter half  of the bill."  He expressed  the understanding                                                              
that  Conceptual  Amendment 1  would  remove the  lookback  period                                                              
CHAIR PATKOTAK  explained  that Conceptual  Amendment 1 would  not                                                              
eliminate the lookback period, but would extend to ten years.                                                                   
1:54:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS expressed his  understanding that  the main                                                              
intent  of CSSB  134(RES)  was to  address  the circumstances  for                                                              
automatic  revocation  of  a master  guide  license,  rather  than                                                              
addressing the lookback period.                                                                                                 
MS. LUCKY stated  her agreement that the primary  intention of the                                                              
proposed   legislation  is   to  determine   the  conditions   for                                                              
automatic revocation  of a master guide license,  with the sponsor                                                              
remaining  neutral on  the matter  of the length  of the  lookback                                                              
period.   She clarified that  "the whole point  of the bill  is to                                                              
remedy unintended  consequences of law that we  passed, as further                                                              
interpreted  by the  board."   She  said that  the sponsor's  only                                                              
concern  would  be  that,  since   the  board  came  up  with  the                                                              
recommendation  of a five-year  lookback  period, and Ms.  Hoffard                                                              
can't say  whether a  10-year lookback  period would be  difficult                                                              
to implement, Conceptual Amendment 1 could be a problem.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS  expressed disagreement  with Representative                                                              
McKay's assertion  that Conceptual Amendment 1  would considerably                                                              
affect the proposed legislation.                                                                                                
1:56:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HANNAN  pointed  out  that  a  five-year  lookback                                                              
period is  referenced twice in  the proposed legislation,  on page                                                              
2, in lines  6 and 13, and  expressed the need for  consistency in                                                              
language.   She  discussed the  importance  of understanding  that                                                              
the intention  in giving  the board  the provisions for  automatic                                                              
revocation was  that the board's  authority should be  invoked for                                                              
those who  are regularly incurring  criminal violations,  and that                                                              
a  master  guide  should  not  lose   their  business  over  minor                                                              
CHAIR  PATKOTAK  stressed  that  with Conceptual  Amendment  1,  a                                                              
conviction within the  past 10 years would result  in an automatic                                                              
license  revocation, and  that  it's possible  to  have a  license                                                              
revoked  without actually  have been  convicted of  anything.   He                                                              
expressed  that there  is  merit to  having  separate time  frames                                                              
when  considering  new  master   guide  licenses  versus  possibly                                                              
revoking existing licenses.                                                                                                     
1:58:49 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  commented that  Section 1, which  would be                                                              
affected by  Conceptual Amendment 1,  considers the issuance  of a                                                              
master  guide  license,  while  Section  2,  which  would  not  be                                                              
affected by  the amendment,  sets guidelines  for revocation.   He                                                              
clarified  that  his  intention  in  moving  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 1  was to amend the  language in both sections,  page 2,                                                              
lines 6 and 13.                                                                                                                 
CHAIR PATKOTAK  recommended withdrawal  of Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                              
and moving an amendment that addresses both areas.                                                                              
1:59:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRONK  expressed   that  he  would  like  to  hear                                                              
testimony  from  master  guides  on the  matter  of  the  lookback                                                              
2:00:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  stated his agreement  with Representative                                                              
Cronk.  He also  expressed that he would need  more information in                                                              
order to form an educated opinion.                                                                                              
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked  Ms. Hoffard whether it would  be possible to                                                              
confer with the board.                                                                                                          
2:01:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. HOFFARD  said that she could  reach out to the  two registered                                                              
guides currently  sitting on the  board; however, as it  is spring                                                              
bear season, they may not be reachable.                                                                                         
2:01:27 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  withdrew Conceptual Amendment  1 and moved                                                              
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                                
2:01:30 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                             
2:01:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE  explained  that  Conceptual  Amendment  2                                                              
would replace  the word "five" with  "ten" on page 2,  lines 6 and                                                      
on page 2, line  13.  He expressed that this  amendment would help                                                              
ensure that  master guides uphold  the highest standards  of their                                                              
profession,  and  he  noted  that   the  previous  standard  under                                                              
statute was 15 years.                                                                                                           
2:02:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HOPKINS  asked  Ms.  Lucky  whether  she  believes                                                              
Senator von Imhof,  as prime sponsor of CSSB  134(RES), would have                                                              
any issue with Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                          
MS.  LUCKY replied  that  she doesn't  believe  there  would be  a                                                              
policy  concern.    She  expressed   concern  in  how  a  ten-year                                                              
lookback period would  work with the board's existing  statute and                                                              
process,  and that  the  BGCSB,  after discussion,  recommended  a                                                              
five-year  lookback  period.   She  said that  she  doesn't see  a                                                              
statutory conflict  with having a ten-year lookback  period within                                                              
the eligibility  section under AS 08.54.610(b)(4)  of the proposed                                                              
legislation,  but  that  Conceptual   Amendment  2,  altering  the                                                              
aforementioned   paragraph  as   well  as   the  language   in  AS                                                              
08.54.610(b)(5)  could pose a  conflict.   She said that,  without                                                              
having  any assurances  from  the  board that  there  would be  no                                                              
conflict, the concern remains.                                                                                                  
2:06:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE  noted that AS 08.54.610(b)(5),  as amended                                                              
in the  proposed legislation,  seems  to be in  conflict with  the                                                              
language  in  as  AS  08.54.610(a)(2),  which  doesn't  include  a                                                              
lookback  period.  He  said, "It  seems to  me that that  conflict                                                              
already exists,  and [if] we're going  to pass this bill  and have                                                              
that  conflict, it  wouldn't  make much  of  a difference  whether                                                              
it's five or ten years."                                                                                                        
2:06:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FIELDS   expressed  that  he's   comfortable  with                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment  2  and recommended  taking  action  on  the                                                              
amendment today.                                                                                                                
2:07:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  stated his  intention to object  and said                                                              
that the House Finance Committee could vet the amendment.                                                                       
CHAIR PATKOTAK  said that SB  134 doesn't  have a referral  to the                                                              
House Finance Committee.                                                                                                        
2:07:55 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
2:08:10 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER suggesting  vetting the amendment  before                                                              
going to the floor.                                                                                                             
2:08:22 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   CRONK  expressed  that   the  language   in  CSSB
134(RES) reflects  what was  intended by  the board, which  should                                                              
be adhered to.                                                                                                                  
2:08:46 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.                                                                       
2:10:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection.                                                                                           
2:11:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRONK objected  and stated  that he won't  support                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment  2  without  any  public  input  from  those                                                              
invested in the issue.                                                                                                          
2:11:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected.                                                                                               
2:11:42 PM                                                                                                                    
A roll  call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Fields,  Hopkins,                                                              
Schrage, and Hannan  voted in favor of *.   Representatives McKay,                                                              
Cronk,  Gillham,   Rauscher,  and   Patkotak  voted   against  it.                                                              
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5-4.                                                                      
2:12:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HOPKINS  moved  to  report CSSB  134(RES)  out  of                                                              
committee  with individual  recommendations  and the  accompanying                                                              
zero fiscal note.                                                                                                               
2:12:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected  for purposes of discussion.   There being                                                              
no  discussion,  he  withdrew  his  objection.    There  being  no                                                              
further objection,  CSSB 134(RES)  was reported  out of  the House                                                              
Resources Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 134 Background - Related Statutes.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM
SB 134
SB 134 Sponsor Statement 4.30.2021.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM
SB 134
SB 134 Support Letter APHA 5.5.21.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM
SB 134
SB 134 Support Doc-BGCSB Final minutes 2.2020.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SRES 5/5/2021 3:30:00 PM
SB 134
SB 134 Sectional Analysis & Summary of Changes v. G 5.07.2021.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SB 134
SB 134 Testimony - Received as of 5.04.2021.pdf HRES 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM
SB 134