Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205

04/23/2021 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SJR 4 CONST. AM: ABORTION/FUNDING TELECONFERENCED
Moved SJR 4 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
+= SB 82 ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= SB 122 VICTIM DEFINITION TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
            SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS                                                                        
                                                                                                                              
1:34:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL NO. 82,                                                               
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[This was the third hearing for SB 82.]                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:34:56 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:35:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CORI  MILLS, Senior  Assistant Attorney  General,  Labor &  State                                                               
Affairs  Section,  Civil  Division, Department  of  Law,  Juneau,                                                               
Alaska, stated she will provide input on amendments to SB 82.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[Amendment 5  was offered prior  to Amendments 1 through  4 being                                                               
taken up.]                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:36:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES  made a motion  to adopt Amendment 5,  [work order                                                               
32-GS1615\A.10].                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                   32-GS1645\A.10                                                               
                                                           Klein                                                                
                                                         4/22/21                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 5                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                         BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                                 
     TO:  SB 82                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "30"                                                                                                           
          Insert "60"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8, following "after":                                                                                         
          Insert "certification of"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "30"                                                                                                           
          Insert "60"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 3 - 22:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(c)  In conducting an investigation under this                                                                       
     section, if the attorney  general has reason to believe                                                                    
     that  a   person  has   information  relevant   to  the                                                                    
     investigation, the attorney general may                                                                                    
               (1)  issue a subpoena requiring the person                                                                       
     to provide  testimony and answer questions  under oath,                                                                    
     subject to penalty of perjury,                                                                                             
               (A)  in person, virtually, or by telephone,                                                                      
     at the discretion of the attorney general;                                                                                 
               (B)  at the location and date and time                                                                           
     stated in the subpoena;                                                                                                    
               (C)  not less than seven days after service                                                                      
     of  the  subpoena,  unless a  court  order  allows  for                                                                    
     expedited testimony;                                                                                                       
               (2)  issue a subpoena duces tecum requiring                                                                      
     the  person to  produce  for  inspection, copying,  and                                                                    
     testing    any    books,   records,    documents,    or                                                                    
     electronically  stored  information   within  30  days,                                                                    
     unless   the  court   orders  an   expedited  response;                                                                    
     electronically stored information  shall be translated,                                                                    
     if necessary, into a reasonably useable form;                                                                              
               (3)  issue interrogatories to the person,                                                                        
     which shall  be signed  under oath, subject  to penalty                                                                    
     of  perjury,  and  provided  to  the  attorney  general                                                                    
     within  30  days unless  a  court  orders an  expedited                                                                    
     response;                                                                                                                  
               (4)  obtain relevant records and information                                                                     
     from a state agency upon  written request to the agency                                                                    
     head; if  the records  or information requested  by the                                                                    
     attorney  general   are  required  by  law   to  remain                                                                    
     confidential,  the  state   agency  shall  provide  the                                                                    
     records   or   information   and  designate   them   as                                                                    
     confidential;   the   attorney   general   shall   keep                                                                    
     confidential any  records or information  designated as                                                                    
     confidential,  except when  disclosure is  necessary to                                                                    
     file an  action under  this section  or to  comply with                                                                    
     state or federal law or a court order.                                                                                     
          (d)  The attorney general shall serve a subpoena,                                                                     
     subpoena  duces tecum,  or  interrogatory issued  under                                                                    
     (c)  of  this  section  in  the  manner  prescribed  by                                                                    
     AS 44.62.430.   The  attorney   general  may   initiate                                                                    
     contempt  proceedings  in   the  manner  prescribed  by                                                                    
     AS 44.62.590 against a person who  fails in whole or in                                                                    
     part to  respond to a  subpoena, subpoena  duces tecum,                                                                    
     or interrogatory issued under (c) of this section.                                                                         
          (e)  Before serving a subpoena, subpoena duces                                                                        
     tecum,  or interrogatories,  the  attorney general  may                                                                    
     file an ex parte petition  in superior court seeking an                                                                    
     order requiring the person to  respond to the subpoena,                                                                    
     subpoena  duces  tecum,  or interrogatory  sooner  than                                                                    
     permitted under  (c) of this  section. The  order shall                                                                    
     be issued by  a judge upon a showing  of probable cause                                                                    
     that a  violation of this chapter,  excluding AS 15.13,                                                                    
     has been committed, is being  committed, or is about to                                                                    
     be committed  and that  there is  reason to  believe an                                                                    
     expedited   response  may   be   necessary  under   the                                                                    
     circumstances. The order may  also designate a deadline                                                                    
     by which  the recipient  of a subpoena,  subpoena duces                                                                    
     tecum,  or   interrogatory  must  file  an   action  in                                                                    
     superior court to quash the subpoena.                                                                                      
          (f)  A person who is served with a subpoena,                                                                          
     subpoena  duces tecum,  or interrogatory  under (c)  of                                                                    
     this section  may file an  action in superior  court to                                                                    
     quash   the   subpoena,   subpoena  duces   tecum,   or                                                                    
     interrogatory  not  later  than  10  days  after  being                                                                    
     served,  unless an  earlier time  is designated  by the                                                                    
     court  under (e)  of this  section.  An action  brought                                                                    
     under  this  subsection  shall   be  considered  on  an                                                                    
     expedited  basis.  The  court  may  hear  evidence  and                                                                    
     argument  from  the attorney  general  in  an ex  parte                                                                    
     setting.  The  court  may quash  a  subpoena,  subpoena                                                                    
     duces tecum,  or interrogatory  only after  finding the                                                                    
     subpoena,  subpoena duces  tecum,  or interrogatory  is                                                                    
     not  reasonably  calculated  to aid  in  a  good  faith                                                                    
     investigation   of  an   alleged   violation  of   this                                                                    
     chapter."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 23:                                                                                                           
     Delete "(f)"                                                                                                               
     Insert "(h)"                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "remain confidential under (e)"                                                                                
          Insert "is not a public record under (g)"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "(g)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(i)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "(g)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(i)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 14:                                                                                                           
          Delete "civil penalty"                                                                                                
          Insert "fine"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:36:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES  explained the intent  of Amendment 5. On  page 1,                                                               
line 7, the language would change  from "30 days from the date of                                                               
an election" to  "60 days from the certification  of an election"                                                               
to give individuals  additional time to file  complaints with the                                                               
Division  of Elections.  Secondly, it  would require  information                                                               
sharing between the agency and  the attorney general's office. On                                                               
page  2, lines  [3-22],  the language  would  allow the  attorney                                                               
general to obtain  relevant records from a state  agency in order                                                               
to expedite an  investigation. Third, it would  clarify terms, as                                                               
suggested by  the Alaska Court  System administrator  by changing                                                               
the language "civil penalty" to "fine"  on page 3, line 14, which                                                               
will more  accurately describe  a penalty  imposed by  the court.                                                               
Typically, a  fine is considered  a sum  of money imposed  by the                                                               
court whereas  a penalty  may not  involve a  court's proceeding.                                                               
Fourth, the  amendment explains exactly how  the attorney general                                                               
would have  the ability to  investigate and provide a  robust and                                                               
timely process  to ensure  compliance by  giving the  Division of                                                               
Elections  and the  Attorney General  the tools  to identify  and                                                               
prevent violations of election law  before those violations could                                                               
affect  the  outcome  of  an   election.  The  proposed  language                                                               
provides more detail  on how the attorney  general's office would                                                               
investigate  and  ensure  compliance with  an  investigation.  It                                                               
would provide  more balance  by giving  the attorney  general the                                                               
right to  subpoena and it would  give the recipient the  right to                                                               
challenge.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES stated that she  worked with the Department of Law                                                               
on this amendment.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:39:17 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:39:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:39:50 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  said the  Department of Law  supports Amendment  5. It                                                               
will provide some clarity by  adding language that complaints can                                                               
be made within 60 days from  the certification of an election. It                                                               
would provide a  more robust subpoena process, which  can be done                                                               
on an  expedited basis in  cases that the department  believes it                                                               
is necessary  to do so. She  said she received comments  from the                                                               
Alaska Court  System to  help ensure that  the language  will fit                                                               
with how the court actually imposes fines.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:41:06 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General  Counsel, Administrative  Offices,  Alaska                                                               
Court  System,   Anchorage,  Alaska,   via  Teams,   stated  that                                                               
Amendment 5 is  acceptable policy for the  legislature, she said.                                                               
However,  it would  require out  several unusual  procedures. She                                                               
referred to subsection (e) on page  2, lines 24 to 28, related to                                                               
the Department  of Law's investigatory  power and  their issuance                                                               
of subpoenas  or interrogatories. The  language on line  22 would                                                               
authorize the  attorney general to  file an ex parte  petition to                                                               
have the court require a  shorter timeframe for the respondent to                                                               
provide a response.  The judge would need to  find probable cause                                                               
that  a  violation  of  the election  fraud  provision  has  been                                                               
committed or is being committed.  She characterized it as similar                                                               
to  a  civil search  warrant.  Judges  do  this with  respect  to                                                               
crimes, to  determine if there  is probable cause  that something                                                               
untoward has happened.  Since this is a civil and  not a criminal                                                               
matter, it provides  for an unusual procedure.  However, she said                                                               
she believes that the court is equipped to comply.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE referred  to  subsection (f),  which  also provides  a                                                               
process different from the usual  one the court system uses. When                                                               
the respondent  receives a  subpoena from  the Department  of Law                                                               
related to  an election  investigation, the  person can  start an                                                               
action  in superior  court  to have  that  subpoena quashed.  She                                                               
characterized this as quite unusual.  The court system would need                                                               
to  develop forms  or procedures  to  allow a  civil action  that                                                               
begins   an   action  to   quash   a   subpoena.  Subpoenas   and                                                               
interrogatories in  every other  instance in  the law  are issued                                                               
during an ongoing action, so a civil case already exists.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  referred to page 3,  lines 3 and 4,  which states, "An                                                               
action brought  under this subsection  shall be considered  on an                                                               
expedited  basis."  She remarked  that  this  is a  very  unusual                                                               
requirement. Usually, a  person would file a  petition along with                                                               
a motion to  have it considered on an expedited  basis. It is not                                                               
common to  place this language  in statute since the  court would                                                               
need to  drop everything to  comply. However, if  the legislature                                                               
adopts this as policy, the court system would do so.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:44:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MEADE referred  to page 3, line 5, which  allows the court to                                                               
hear evidence  and arguments from  the attorney general in  an ex                                                               
parte setting,  which means the other  party in an action  is not                                                               
present and  cannot provide any  evidence. She explained  that ex                                                               
parte proceedings are  disfavored in the law because  they do not                                                               
provide due  process. However, if  the legislature  adds subpoena                                                               
actions for consideration  in an ex parte setting,  the court can                                                               
and will abide.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:46:24 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  asked the  Department  of  Law to  respond.  She                                                               
pointed out that Amendment 5  relates to an investigative process                                                               
that is authorized to gather evidence  but it does not pertain to                                                               
a hearing where decisions will be made.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:47:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  agreed that the Department  of Law would seek  ways to                                                               
gather  evidence to  substantiate  a complaint  that has  alleged                                                               
violation that  has occurred. She  understood the  court system's                                                               
points,  that this  is something  the court  system rarely  sees.                                                               
However,  the  election context  has  strict  deadlines that  the                                                               
Division of Elections  must meet so the department  would need to                                                               
move  quickly. She  was unsure  whether the  expedited procedures                                                               
would  be needed  each time  but  it would  provide an  important                                                               
option  to  assure  that the  investigation  moves  forward.  She                                                               
referred to the  ex parte settings on lines 4  to 5, which states                                                               
that  the  court  may  hear   evidence.  The  department  is  not                                                               
requiring evidence  be heard  or to  receive arguments  but would                                                               
like to leave that option open since  it would be in the midst of                                                               
an  investigation.   There  may   be  evidence  to   support  the                                                               
department pursuing a subpoena or  to gather more information but                                                               
it should not  be public at that point. The  department would not                                                               
want the  subject of the  complaint or even  a third party  to be                                                               
aware of  the complaint. First,  the department does not  want to                                                               
tarnish  the  reputation  of  someone  prior  to  completing  its                                                               
investigation nor does it wish  to hinder an investigation. There                                                               
may be  circumstances in  which an  ex parte  hearing is  held to                                                               
consider  background   information.  If  members   have  specific                                                               
questions  on the  process someone  from the  Consumer Protection                                                               
Section can respond, she said.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:50:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL expressed  interest in the ex parte  language in SB
82. He stated that he supports  most of the language in Amendment                                                               
5. He  said that the  emphasis on permissive language,  such that                                                               
it  is  possible for  a  judge  to  agree  to hear  evidence  and                                                               
arguments in ex parte settings gives him a modicum of comfort.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:50:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SENATOR HOLLAND removed his objection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:51:31 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:52:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HOLLAND reconvened  the meeting.  There  being no  further                                                               
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:52:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  made a  motion to adopt  Amendment 1,  [work order                                                               
32-GS1645\A.1].                                                                                                                 
                                                   32-GS1645\A.1                                                                
                                                          Klein                                                                 
                                                        4/15/21                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                          BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  SB 82                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "division"                                                                                                     
          Insert "attorney general"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 11, through page 2, line 8:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(b)  If a complaint alleges a violation of                                                                           
     AS 15.13 or  a regulation  adopted under  AS 15.13, the                                                                    
     attorney  general  shall  refer the  complaint  to  the                                                                    
     Alaska Public  Offices Commission. If the  complaint is                                                                    
     incomplete,  the attorney  general finds  the complaint                                                                    
     frivolous,  or the  allegations  in  the complaint,  if                                                                    
     true,  do  not  constitute a  violation,  the  attorney                                                                    
     general may  request additional information  or dismiss                                                                    
     the complaint.                                                                                                             
          (c)  Excluding an alleged violation of a                                                                              
     provision  of AS 15.13  or a  regulation adopted  under                                                                    
     AS 15.13,  the  attorney  general  may  investigate  an                                                                    
     alleged violation of a provision of this title                                                                             
               (1)  included in a complaint;                                                                                    
              (2)  identified by the director; or                                                                               
               (3)  identified by the attorney general."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 18:                                                                                                           
          Delete "director"                                                                                                     
          Insert "attorney general"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:52:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  explained  that  Amendment  1  would  direct  any                                                               
complaints  to  the  attorney general's  office  instead  of  the                                                               
Division of Elections. He offered  his view that complaints would                                                               
primarily  relate  to   legal  issues  so  it   makes  sense  for                                                               
investigations  to begin  at the  Department of  Law. This  could                                                               
also avoid the potential appearance  of impropriety since some of                                                               
the complaints will  be filed against the  Division of Election's                                                               
staff. Thus,  it seems a little  odd to have the  division decide                                                               
if  the complaint  warrants an  investigation. He  suggested that                                                               
the complaint is dismissed, it is  best done by the Department of                                                               
Law.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES  expressed concern  about the potential  volume of                                                               
complaints. She suggested  that it might affect  the fiscal note.                                                               
She  further suggested  that having  a complaint  initially filed                                                               
with the  Division of Elections  might result in  the complainant                                                               
acquiring information that could  immediately resolve the matter.                                                               
For  example, division  staff can  clarify requirements  that may                                                               
satisfy the  complainant that election  laws are  being followed.                                                               
Currently, SB 82  does not allow a complainant  an opportunity to                                                               
file a complaint directly with the attorney general.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL offered  his view  that the  volume of  complaints                                                               
would  not  change between  the  Division  of Elections  and  the                                                               
Department of Law. He asked the Department of Law to comment.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:55:15 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  MILLS responded  that  she understands  that  the volume  of                                                               
complaints would be the same  in number. However, the Division of                                                               
Elections currently receives a steady  flow of complaints whereas                                                               
the Department  of Law  would need to  absorb that  activity plus                                                               
respond  to any  additional  complaints filed  with the  attorney                                                               
general.   She  envisioned   that  the   division  would   filter                                                               
complaints and the department would  only receive complaints that                                                               
require  investigations.   She  said   she  did  not   think  the                                                               
department has  too strong  of a  position on  this but  it would                                                               
need to consider the fiscal impact.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:56:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MYERS said Amendment 1  raises an issue of expertise. The                                                               
Department of Law  requested two new positions to  handle some of                                                               
the   responsibilities  under   the  bill.   He  recalled   prior                                                               
discussions  on  specialized  election  law  and  procedures.  He                                                               
related his own experience with  the Division of Elections during                                                               
a  recount.  He  offered  his  view that  the  vast  majority  of                                                               
questions can  be answered  by the  division so  maintaining that                                                               
the division conduct of the initial screening makes sense.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES asked the chair to  table Amendment 1 to allow the                                                               
attorney general's office to further consider the fiscal impact.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  SHOWER said  he would  like more  input. He  agreed that                                                               
Amendment 1 should be tabled.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:00:32 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL suggested  the committee roll the  amendment to the                                                               
bottom and  take it up  at a subsequent  meeting. He said  he did                                                               
not think  parties could appeal  decisions that were made  by the                                                               
Division of Elections to the  Department of Law. If a complainant                                                               
is unhappy with  a decision, the person could  resolve the matter                                                               
in court, he said.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES related her understanding  that if the complainant                                                               
is unhappy  with the outcome  made by the Division  of Elections,                                                               
the person could file a complaint with the attorney general.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:01:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  responded that the department  envisioned that someone                                                               
could petition the attorney general  if the Division of Elections                                                               
dismissed  a complaint  and the  party disagreed.  Currently, she                                                               
did not think  it would be necessary to do  so since the division                                                               
and  the Department  of Law  work  closely on  these matters  but                                                               
under a  new administration, that relationship  might change. The                                                               
attorney  general is  not barred  from investigating  a complaint                                                               
even though the division dismisses it, she said.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:02:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL withdrew Amendment 1.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:02:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  made a  motion to adopt  Amendment 2,  [work order                                                               
32-GS1615\A.7].                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                   32-GS1645\A.7                                                                
                                                          Klein                                                                 
                                                        4/19/21                                                                 
                          AMENDMENT 2                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                          BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  SB 82                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 22:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                           
          "(e)  The attorney general may not continue an                                                                        
     investigation of  an alleged  violation of  a provision                                                                    
     of  this  title for  longer  than  one year  after  the                                                                    
     complaint   is  filed   unless  the   attorney  general                                                                    
     requests  and  receives   approval  from  the  superior                                                                    
     court. The  superior court may approve  a request under                                                                    
     this subsection  if the attorney general  establishes a                                                                    
     reasonable   probability   that    the   person   being                                                                    
     investigated has violated a provision of this title."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "(f)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(g)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "(e)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(f)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "(g)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(h)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "(g)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(h)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, following line 10:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
       "* Sec. 2. AS 22.10.020 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (j)  The superior court may review and approve                                                                        
    requests    to    extend   an    investigation    under                                                                     
     AS 15.56.140(e)."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:03:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  explained that Amendment  2 relates to  the length                                                               
of  time  to  process  complaints.   The  Division  of  Elections                                                               
discussed  this when  it  presented the  bill  and the  committee                                                               
subsequently expressed  concern about  how long some  cases might                                                               
linger.  For example,  during elections  campaigners might  use a                                                               
complaint made against a candidate  as another means to discredit                                                               
the candidate.  Amendment 2 states  that if the  attorney general                                                               
wanted  to continue  an investigation  beyond the  calendar year,                                                               
the  attorney general  could seek  permission in  superior court.                                                               
Amendment  2 will  prevent situations  from  occurring, where  an                                                               
investigation becomes an attack ad  in the next cycle. A campaign                                                               
might use  the ongoing  complaint to state  a candidate  has been                                                               
under investigation  for two  years as an  attempt to  malign the                                                               
candidate. He characterized  it as a check similar to  the one in                                                               
Amendment 5 which addressed subpoenas.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES  said she understands the  concern that candidates                                                               
might use this as a tool;  it could happen. She expressed concern                                                               
that  it raises  a  separation  of powers  issue,  such that  the                                                               
superior court could direct the  attorney general to halt a case.                                                               
She offered her  belief that the statute of  limitations on cases                                                               
was  typically in  the  5  to 6  year  range.  Amendment 2  would                                                               
significantly tighten  up that language.  She said she  could not                                                               
recall  any other  area of  law that  limits that  timeframe. She                                                               
offered her view  that the types of issues  that other candidates                                                               
raise is  typically related to  financial matters and  the Alaska                                                               
Public  Offices Commission  (APOC) would  have jurisdiction  over                                                               
those  complaints. Other  complaints  are  related to  residency,                                                               
such  as whether  a  candidate actually  lives  in the  district,                                                               
which by law must be resolved  within 30 days. Thus, this narrows                                                               
the  realm  of  issues  left.  She  pointed  out  that  sometimes                                                               
multiple  complaints that  are  similar in  nature  are filed  at                                                               
different times by parties. This  means the statute of limitation                                                               
dates would also need to be staggered.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HUGHES  suggested  the  importance  of  having  a  clear                                                               
statement  to indicate  that the  attorney general  will expedite                                                               
complaints  on  candidates  and  elected  officials.  This  would                                                               
provide  a  solution  such  that complaints  would  not  bump  up                                                               
against the next  election. This would require  the Department of                                                               
Law (DOL) to prioritize these cases.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:07:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER  suggested that the  language would  not guarantee                                                               
that  the  attorney  general  will expedite  cases  since  it  is                                                               
subjective  and  would likely  depend  on  the specific  attorney                                                               
general.  He asked  if Amendment  2 could  be amended  to require                                                               
that the  attorney general must prioritize  cases, including some                                                               
means to measure it.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES  suggested language  to require that  the attorney                                                               
general expedite complaints pertaining  to candidates and elected                                                               
officials in  order to  complete the  investigation prior  to the                                                               
next election.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:09:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  recalled previous discussions with  the Department                                                               
of Law, the  department indicated that some  legitimate cases may                                                               
last several years.  He argued against placing  hard deadlines in                                                               
the  bill that  could harm  investigations. He  offered his  view                                                               
that that  a relatively low  threshold of  reasonable probability                                                               
exists. He  suggested if members  are concerned that one  year is                                                               
not enough time, it could be increased to 16 months.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:11:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS responded that DOL has  looked at the issue. She agreed                                                               
with  Senator  Hughes  that  candidate  qualifications  currently                                                               
impose a 30-day  time limit for determinations to be  made by the                                                               
division.  She said  Amendment 2  would apply  to complaints  not                                                               
related to  campaign finance,  candidate qualifications,  or some                                                               
other  violations  not  directly  related to  election  law.  She                                                               
expressed concern that going to  court could alert people that an                                                               
investigation was  underway. As previously discussed,  related to                                                               
subpoena power, DOL wants to use  the ex parte process to present                                                               
information  to the  judge without  hindering the  investigation.                                                               
She said  Amendment 2  seeks accountability  from DOL  during the                                                               
midst  of an  investigation,  which is  difficult. She  suggested                                                               
that it might be best to  identify and narrow the concerns to the                                                               
circumstances  that  raise concern.  She  said  DOL would  likely                                                               
support  the  provision  to prioritize  complaints  but  she  was                                                               
unsure of  how to accomplish the  notification and accountability                                                               
requirements without hindering the investigations.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:13:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER  requested DOL develop the  language to prioritize                                                               
complaints and develop accountability requirements.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:15:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MYERS  offered   his  view  that  the   concern  on  the                                                               
separation of  powers issue in  Amendment 2 is with  the superior                                                               
court's oversight. He asked whether  any other body could provide                                                               
the oversight.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:15:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said  he appreciated the question  on separation of                                                               
powers. He agreed  that the checks and balance  are important. He                                                               
suggested that the  Office of Administrative Hearings  (OAH) is a                                                               
quasi-independent body in the executive  branch that could handle                                                               
these matters.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:16:42 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MEADE replied that she shares  some of the same concerns. She                                                               
said  Amendment  2  would  put  the  court  in  the  position  of                                                               
supervising  an  activity that  is  wholly  within the  executive                                                               
branch.  She said  she was  not aware  of any  other area  of law                                                               
where a  superior court  judge would  make a  ruling to  tell the                                                               
executive branch  how to proceed  with their  investigative work.                                                               
She suggested that it might be possible to find a work around.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND asked for clarification on the request for DOL.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:18:11 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER restated  his request.  He asked  DOL to  provide                                                               
language to  bridge the  gap between  providing the  safety valve                                                               
that Senator  Kiehl suggests  but to  set the  bar to  achieve it                                                               
without causing any concerns.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:18:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS responded that she  would discuss this further with her                                                               
team  to develop  workable language.  She suggested  that keeping                                                               
the  process   within  the  executive  branch   and  providing  a                                                               
confidential process were positive directions.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HOLLAND related  his understanding  on  the separation  of                                                               
powers issue.  He asked whether  an alternate body could  be used                                                               
rather than involving the superior court.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:20:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MYERS asked  if the  Office  of Administrative  Hearings                                                               
(OAH) could  provide oversight  due to  the separation  of powers                                                               
issue rather than superior court.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS agreed  that one  approach could  be to  use OAH.  She                                                               
stated that  one issue is  how to handle multiple  complaints and                                                               
overlapping investigations.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:22:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  related that Amendment  2 does not try  to address                                                               
every scenario,  but there should  be enough specificity  to mean                                                               
something.  He  stated that  DOL  would  have the  discretion  to                                                               
consolidate complaints but also initiate its own complaints.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:23:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  said  he appreciated  the  discussion  and  DOL's                                                               
willingness to  work on language.  He offered his  willingness to                                                               
withdraw Amendment 2 and take it up on another occasion.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND withdrew his objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL withdrew Amendment 2.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:24:22 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  made a  motion to adopt  Amendment 3,  [work order                                                               
32-GS1615\A.4].                                                                                                                 
                                                   32-GS1645\A.4                                                                
                                                          Klein                                                                 
                                                        4/15/21                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 3                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                          BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  SB 82                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 29:                                                                                                           
          Delete "may"                                                                                                          
          Insert "shall"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:24:32 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  explained  that  Amendment  3  would  change  the                                                               
language "may" to "shall" for  the attorney general to notify the                                                               
Division of  Elections when  a case  is completed.  He emphasized                                                               
the  importance  for  an  individual  to  know  when  a  case  is                                                               
completed and  the person is  cleared of any wrongdoing.  When an                                                               
investigation leads  to criminal charges  or changes in  the laws                                                               
or  regulations, that  information  is known.  However, when  the                                                               
department investigates a complaint and  finds no evidence of any                                                               
wrongdoing, DOL  must let the  division know so the  parties know                                                               
the outcome.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:25:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS responded that the  reason the language reads "may" was                                                               
because DOL  had concern  it might  be burdensome.  She suggested                                                               
that if a report could consist  of a sentence that states that no                                                               
evidence was found  or the complaint was  not substantiated, that                                                               
would not  be too burdensome.  However, if the  language requires                                                               
DOL to prepare a lengthy report, it would be burdensome.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:26:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MYERS  asked if the  language read "shall" but  added the                                                               
caveat "unless  the complaint  has been  deemed to  be frivolous"                                                               
would be acceptable.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILLS offered  her belief that frivolous  complaints would be                                                               
dismissed by the division.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES  said she  preferred a  written record.  She asked                                                               
whether the  language requiring  a report  could be  clarified to                                                               
make  it  clear  that  a  lengthy report  is  not  required.  She                                                               
suggested  that  perhaps  the  report could  be  limited  to  the                                                               
conclusion DOL  reached but  to retain  that the  department must                                                               
provide a written document.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  SHOWER offered  his view  that DOL  could implement  the                                                               
report requirement  by deciding  which information to  include in                                                               
their report. He asked whether DOL  would have the latitude to do                                                               
so.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILLS answered  that she generally agreed  with the comments.                                                               
However, it is  amazing what people will sue  over. She expressed                                                               
concern that  if the  department provided a  one page  report, an                                                               
argument could be made that it was not a report.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  SHOWER  remarked  that   most  people  want  the  simple                                                               
outcome. If the  department got sued, it could  write a lengthier                                                               
report.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HOLLAND commented  that if  someone wants  a lawsuit,  the                                                               
person will likely sue anyway.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:30:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the  criteria should be in statute albeit                                                               
something simple. She asked if DOL could develop language.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS  answered that  report  infers  something bigger.  She                                                               
suggested changing  the language "report"  to "notice" so  if any                                                               
details are needed, they would  be included. When DOL files court                                                               
actions, the  backup would be  public. If  the goal is  to inform                                                               
people there is an end, notice would infer something short.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:32:39 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:33:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the  sponsor would be willing to consider                                                               
using the language  "shall" but to replace  "report" with "notice                                                               
of findings."  She suggested a conceptual  amendment to Amendment                                                               
3 could be adopted or Amendment 3 could be withdrawn.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:34:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  said the  department could  specify the  report or                                                               
notice of  finding since SB  82 is the administration's  bill. He                                                               
said Amendment 3 would merely  require the department to indicate                                                               
when an investigation is completed.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:34:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  expressed concern  that  if  Amendment 3  passes                                                               
without the clarifying language,  it would require the department                                                               
to write a report, which could  be burdensome. She said she would                                                               
like  a  written  report.  However,   it  is  possible  that  the                                                               
department  may receive  a substantial  number of  complaints and                                                               
she does not want to burden  the department with the necessity of                                                               
writing lengthy reports.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:35:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL offered a willingness to define report or replace                                                                 
report with some other language.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to                                                                         
Amendment 3, on page 2, line 30 to delete "report of the                                                                        
investigation" and insert "notice of findings."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND withdrew his objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:36:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES stated the language would read:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     (f) At  the conclusion  of an investigation  under this                                                                    
     section,   the  attorney   general  shall   inform  the                                                                    
     division  of the  result of  the investigation  and may                                                                    
     submit  to the  division  a notice  of  finding of  the                                                                    
     investigation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to                                                                     
Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND noted Amendment 3, as amended, was before the                                                                     
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was                                                                  
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:37:37 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:37:44 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL made  a motion to adopt Conceptual  Amendment 4,                                                                  
[amended work order 32-GS1645\A.9,  Version A.9]. He explained                                                                  
Amendment  4  is a  conceptual  amendment  because he  made  a                                                                  
handwritten   change  to   the   Legislative  Legal   Services                                                                  
amendment by  deleting "(d) of"  on line 6  to Version  A.9 as                                                                  
shown:                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                     CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT 4                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                          BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
     TO:  SB 82                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 23, through page 3, line 5:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(e)  When the attorney general submits a report                                                                      
     of an  investigation to the  division, a record  of the                                                                    
     investigation  and   the  report  are   public  records                                                                    
     subject to  the disclosure requirements  and exemptions                                                                    
     under    AS 40.25.100    -   40.25.295.    Intelligence                                                                    
     information  of  the  attorney general  obtained  under                                                                    
     [(d) OF]  this section  is not a  public record  and is                                                                    
     not   subject  to   disclosure  under   AS 40.25.100  -                                                                    
     40.25.295.                                                                                                                 
          (f)  At the conclusion of an investigation under                                                                      
     this  section, the  attorney general  shall inform  the                                                                    
     division of  the result of the  investigation and shall                                                                    
     submit to  the division a report  of the investigation.                                                                    
     If  the  attorney  general's  investigation  determines                                                                    
     that  a  complaint  against a  state  agency  or  state                                                                    
     employee  is meritorious,  the  division  shall make  a                                                                    
     reasonable effort  to work with the  agency or employee                                                                    
     to take corrective action."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:38:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL explained  that once DOL submits the  report to the                                                               
Division  of Elections,  Conceptual  Amendment 4  would make  the                                                               
records of the investigation public  and the usual Public Records                                                               
Act  rules   would  apply.  He  assured   members  that  personal                                                               
information, such  as phone numbers,  Social Security  number and                                                               
intelligence information is protected.  The handwritten change in                                                               
Conceptual   Amendment   4   makes  certain   that   intelligence                                                               
information will not  be released. The baseline  information in a                                                               
concluded investigation  becomes public, he said.  He offered his                                                               
view that  it is in  the public interest  to do so.  He clarified                                                               
that the Alaska State Troopers  or other law enforcement agencies                                                               
will  always  keep confidential  any  information  related TO  an                                                               
investigation.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:40:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  referred to  line  3  and suggested  a  friendly                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  1 to Conceptual  Amendment 4 to  remove the                                                               
language,  "report of  an investigation"  and insert,  "notice of                                                               
the  findings".   She  explained   that  a   previous  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 to Amendment 3  changed "report of the investigation"                                                               
to "notice of  findings." This language would  be consistent with                                                               
that change.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:41:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND  suggested adding "or notice  of finding" following                                                               
the language "report of an investigation" to cover either case.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:41:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  directed  attention  to  line  3  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 to the specific language.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL, after clarifying  the statutory cite in Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4, agreed it was needed.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:41:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES   moved  to  adopt  Conceptual   Amendment  1  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 4 on line  3 to remove the language, "report                                                               
of an investigation" and insert, "notice of the findings".                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL clarified  that the word "report"  appears in three                                                               
places in  Conceptual Amendment  4. He  suggested "notice  of the                                                               
findings" replace "report" in all three places.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HUGHES  revised  Conceptual Amendment  1  to  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  4  to  replace  "report  of  the  investigation"  with                                                               
"notice of the findings" in all occurrences.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:42:24 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER  asked the  record  to  reflect that  Legislative                                                               
Legal Services can make technical and conforming changes.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:42:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND  objected for discussion  purposes. There  being no                                                               
discussion, he removed his objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
There  being  no further  objection,  Conceptual  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND  indicated Conceptual Amendment 4,  as amended, was                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:43:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   HUGHES  suggested   a  friendly   amendment,  to   flip                                                               
subsections  (e)  and  (f).  She  explained  that  first,  it  is                                                               
necessary to  have the information  submitted to the  Division of                                                               
Elections,  then  the  records  would  become  available  to  the                                                               
public. It will not change what  happens but the suggestion is an                                                               
organizational change.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL said he did not have any objection.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:44:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES   moved  to  adopt  Conceptual   Amendment  2  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 4, to reverse subsections (e) and (f).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being  no objection, Conceptual  Amendment 2  to Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HOLLAND stated  that Conceptual  Amendment 4,  as amended,                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:45:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MYERS  suggested that some  of the changes being  made by                                                               
previously adopted amendments and  conceptual amendments to SB 82                                                               
would  be  deleted  by  Conceptual  Amendment  4.  He  wanted  to                                                               
understand the overall effect of the amendments.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed that Senator Myers had a fair concern.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:46:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL   said  he  was  not   concerned  that  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4  will "undo" the  changes. He noted that  Amendment 4                                                               
is conceptual  so Legislative Legal Services  can make conforming                                                               
changes to the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HUGHES referred  to page 3, line 2 of  SB 82. She related                                                               
her understanding.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:47:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL deferred to staff.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:47:56 PM                                                                                                                    
CATHY  SCHLINGHYDE,  Staff,  Senator Jesse  Kiehl,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau,  Alaska, on behalf of  the sponsor, answered                                                               
yes, Conceptual  Amendment 4 will  delete the language  about the                                                               
records being confidential  and instead that they  are subject to                                                               
the usual rules  of the Public Records Act. She  offered her view                                                               
that  Conceptual Amendment  1 erased  the contradiction  with the                                                               
work done  in Amendment  3 so  they should  work in  concert with                                                               
each other.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:48:31 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND withdrew his objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:48:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MYERS  asked if  the Department of  Law could  comment on                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:49:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  stated that she  now understands  Conceptual Amendment                                                               
4.   She  clarified   that   DOL   has  historically   considered                                                               
intelligence information  in consumer  protection matters  as the                                                               
information that is  gathered in the course  of an investigation.                                                               
The  record of  the investigation  is a  fairly narrow  category.                                                               
Under the Consumer  Protection Act, which is  where this language                                                               
was  derived,   intelligence  information   and  the   record  of                                                               
investigation  are confidential  and  not subject  to the  Public                                                               
Records Act.  She advised  the committee that  the record  of the                                                               
investigation  is very  narrow as  compared  to the  intelligence                                                               
information, which is anything collected  that may end up leading                                                               
to a violation or any matters referred to law enforcement.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:50:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 3,  line 2. She asked if removing                                                               
the rest  of the information  in that paragraph was  fine because                                                               
that  information is  already confidential  and a  public records                                                               
request would not include any of it.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS  stated  her  preference to  treat  it  like  consumer                                                               
protection  information  and  not make  the  distinction  between                                                               
intelligence information and the  record of investigation. All of                                                               
it  is  protected,  she  said.   The  way  she  reads  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4  is that there  would be  two buckets. The  record of                                                               
the  investigation  would  be treated  under  the  normal  Public                                                               
Records Act process.  DOL would conduct a  review, determine what                                                               
was privileged and what was not,  and what fell under the various                                                               
exceptions.  The intelligence  information, which  is information                                                               
gathered  during the  investigation, including  working with  law                                                               
enforcement, would not be subject  to the Public Records Act. DOL                                                               
would not conduct the same review for those documents.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:52:16 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 3,  line 2. She asked if starting                                                               
with  the   word  "intelligence"  and  replacing   the  remaining                                                               
language would accomplish her goal.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS  said  the department  would  prefer  Senator  Kiehl's                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  4 because  it better  identifies it  as not                                                               
being a public  record. That makes it easier for  DOL rather than                                                               
saying it  is not confidential  because it raises  questions. She                                                               
stated  that DOL  considered stating  it  is not  subject to  the                                                               
Public Records Act.  She said that this language  makes it really                                                               
clear  what  lines  are  being drawn.  She  maintained  that  the                                                               
language in Conceptual Amendment 4 was more appropriate.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:53:29 PM                                                                                                                    
There  being no  further  objection, Conceptual  Amendment 4,  as                                                               
amended, was adopted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
[SB 82 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 82 Amendment Packet (SJUD).pdf SJUD 4/23/2021 1:30:00 PM
SB 82