02/26/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB319 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 2018
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to criminal background checks for marijuana
establishment registrations and renewals; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to the sealing of certain court records;
restricting the publication of certain records of convictions on
a publicly available website; relating to public records; and
amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration."
- MOVED CSHB 316(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
disclose confidential information in an investigation or
proceeding, including a lease royalty audit, appeal, or request
for reconsideration and issue a protective order limiting the
persons who have access to the confidential information."
- MOVED CSHB 330(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/31/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/31/18 (H) STA, JUD
02/13/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/15/18 (H) Moved CSHB 319(STA) Out of Committee
02/15/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/18 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR
02/16/18 (H) DP: TUCK, KNOPP, WOOL, LEDOUX, KREISS-
TOMKINS
02/16/18 (H) NR: BIRCH, JOHNSON
02/26/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
01/31/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/31/18 (H) JUD, FIN
02/09/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/09/18 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/12/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/12/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/05/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/18 (H) JUD, RES
02/16/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/23/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, presented
the legislation on behalf of Representative Josephson.
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director
Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered
questions.
BRANDON EMMETT, Vice-Chair
Marijuana Control Board
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered
questions.
GARY LEE, Criminal Justice Planner
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, answered
questions.
PAUL DISDIER, General Manager
Fireweed Factory LLC
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, testified.
JANA WELTZIN, Attorney
Counsel to Hoban Law Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 319, testified,
answered questions, and offered support for the legislation.
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff
Representative Harriet Drummond
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 316, answered
questions on behalf of Representative Drummond.
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 330, presented
Amendment 2.
ED KING, Legislative Liaison
Commissioner's Office
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 330, answered
questions regarding Amendment 2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:11 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Eastman, and Reinbold were present at the call to
order. Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, and Stutes (alternate for
Representative Fansler) arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 319-RENEW MARIJUANA LICENSE:BACKGROUND CHECKS
1:05:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to criminal background
checks for marijuana establishment registrations and renewals;
and providing for an effective date."
1:06:18 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, advised that CSHB 319 changes the
fingerprinting requirements for marijuana registration renewal.
Under current statute, marijuana registration holders are
required to submit a new set of fingerprints on an annual basis,
and this legislation changes that requirement from every year to
every six years. She explained that the annual requirement is
not standard for other industries, although, massage therapy
requires that new fingerprints are submitted after the initial
registration, and there is active legislation addressing the
massage therapy issue. The interest in these proposed changes
originated in the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) due to its Alaska Public Safety Information
System (ASPIN) that provides notice of any changes in the
criminal activity of a license or registration holder who had
previously provided their fingerprints. Due to the fact that
the requirement to turn in a "fresh set" of fingerprint is
currently in place and given the fact that a person's
fingerprints do not change, and their fingerprints were
initially logged into this data base, it is the sponsor's belief
that this requirement is unnecessary, she explained.
1:07:58 PM
MS. HOLLAND advised that the previous version of this bill, as
heard in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, set this
requirement to once every three years, which was an idea
proposed by the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Board. The House
State Affairs Standing Committee decided to amend the three-
years to every six-years and it passed with unanimous support.
She noted that her research into how this issue is handled in
other adult-use legal states found that some states do require
that new fingerprints are turned in; however, most states
include language that the state may require new fingerprints if
there is a demonstrated investigative need. This legislation
removes an unnecessary burden to both industry and the state
without compromising the public's safety, she offered.
1:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Director Erika McConnell,
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, what the fingerprinting
policy would look like in order for marijuana license holders to
be treated the same as alcohol beverage license holders.
1:10:18 PM
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director, Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), advised that AS 04.11.295 is the statute on the alcohol
side, and she paraphrased as follows:
An applicant for applicant for issuance of a license
shall submit fingerprints ... the board may require an
applicant for renewal of a license or a conditional
contractor's permit under this title to submit
fingerprints and pay fees as required by this
subsection."
1:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the law should not read
the same for those in the marijuana industry.
MS. MCCONNELL noted that while both substances are regulated
substances, marijuana is illegal at the federal level and
alcohol is not illegal. She then deferred to Brandon Emmett,
Vice Chair, Marijuana Control Board.
1:11:40 PM
BRANDON EMMETT, Vice-Chair, Marijuana Control Board, advised
that the Marijuana Control Board contemplated this issue during
a previous meeting which was centered around the fact that many
of the people in the marijuana industry and those who voted to
legalize marijuana wanted it regulated like alcohol. Except, he
pointed out, there are still issues surrounding the legality of
marijuana on the federal level and some of the board members
raised concerns. The ideas were that the language reflect what
is in alcohol, and that the registration be every five years.
The Marijuana Control Board settled on a compromise of every
three years which reflected the two sides of the board's
opinion.
1:13:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that the process within
the alcohol beverage industry is that a person is fingerprinted
upon transfer of an alcohol beverage license and the Alcohol
Beverage Control Board may ask for new fingerprints, for
whatever reason and whatever time, but there is no recurring
fingerprinting requirement.
MS. MCCONNELL replied that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct.
1:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that he was trying to
understand how it would be a compromise when part of the
Marijuana Control Board preferred every five years and the other
members preferred using the language used for the Alcohol
Beverage Control Board, which appears to be an even less
restrictive measure. He acknowledged that the legislature had
since changed that, and he asked how three years is a compromise
and what were the arguments against "doing as is done in
alcohol."
MR. EMMETT answered that there definitely was not consensus by
the board members as to whether the language should stay with
the every-year requirement or be essentially open-ended, such as
in alcohol, and after some discussion, three years was the
compromise. He explained that the body of the Marijuana Control
Board is often split on many decisions with robust debate, and
it then comes to some sort of a compromise on most of the
divisive issues.
1:16:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked that the department and the
board flag this issue, and he remarked that marijuana is now
decriminalized and legal. He commented that he would like to
hear a compelling reason as to why there should be a recurring
fingerprinting requirement as opposed to what happens within the
alcohol industry. He asked what the problem a recurring
fingerprinting requirement is solving, besides being a lot of
hassle for a lot of people.
MS. HOLLAND answered that the benefit of a recurring requirement
for submitting new fingerprints is that in requesting those
fingerprints, it triggers a national background check.
Although, she acknowledged, the department has software to track
changes in the criminal activity of registration holders on a
state level, it does not do so on a national level. In the
event a registration holder was involved in criminal activity
outside of Alaska, the department would be unaware of that
activity, she explained.
1:18:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why it is in Alaska's
interest to be aware of any potential criminal activity that a
marijuana license holder might be complicit in outside of
Alaska, and why there is a greater concern on a marijuana
license holder than on an alcohol beverage license holder.
MS. HOLLAND pointed out that marijuana is still illegal on the
federal level, thereby, causing an incentive to be more
restrictive on this industry as compared to alcohol.
1:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked, "What gives if someone is
complicit in federal illegal activity if they hold a marijuana
license nationally." While he realizes that is "sort of bad in
general," he asked whether that endangers the legal or
decriminalized status of marijuana in Alaska if something does
appear on the background check.
MS. MCCONNELL referred to the marijuana statute, AS
17.38.010(b), which read as follows:
(b) In the interest of the health and public safety of
our citizenry, the people of the state of Alaska
further find and declare that the production and sale
of marijuana should be regulated so that
(1) individuals will have to show proof of age
before purchasing marijuana;
(2) legitimate, taxpaying business people, and
not criminal actors, will conduct sales of marijuana;
and
(3) marijuana sold by regulated businesses will
be labeled and subject to additional regulations to
ensure that consumers are informed and protected.
MS. MCCONNELL explained that later on in the statute, it clearly
states that certain criminal acts, certain felonies, and certain
misdemeanors are disqualifying situations for people to hold a
marijuana license. On the alcohol side, she explained, the
board has the discretion to evaluate a criminal act on the part
of an applicant or licensee and make a determination whether to
allow that person to become a licensee. She reiterated that on
the alcohol side it is at the discretion of the board, on the
marijuana side there is statutory language directing that
certain types of criminal actors are not to be licensees.
1:20:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that someone walk the committee
through the process by which the fingerprinting and background
checks take place.
MS. MCCONNELL responded that part of the application process
includes a number of different forms, a set of fingerprints, and
a set of fees. Once all of those things are submitted to the
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, it begins the process.
The actual fingerprints are transferred to the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to perform the national criminal background
check and it then provides DCCED with a report of the results of
that check.
1:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that someone provides the
Marijuana Control Board with a copy of fingerprints "they may
have obtained somewhere else," submits all of the forms, her
office processes them and sends [the fingerprints] to the
authorities to perform the national check.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman was suggesting
that a person could sit in their home and fingerprint
themselves, or was he saying that DCCED chooses the third-party
vendor.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DCCED performs the act of
fingerprinting at its office, or whether it accepts the
fingerprints from another source.
MS. MCCONNELL answered that the fingerprinting is performed on
the appropriate form by third-party businesses and the list of
those third-parties are located on the department's website.
1:23:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that when a person becomes a member of the
Alaska Bar Association (ABA) their fingerprints are taken one
time and never again. He commented that the only reason to
request the fingerprints here is to trigger the national
background check.
MS. HOLLAND replied that Chair Claman was correct, the purpose
in obtaining the new fingerprints is to trigger the national
background check.
1:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the fee relates to the
background check, and whether it is simply of the cost for the
state to perform that background check.
MS. MCCONNELL answered that a $47 fee was set by DPS, and DCCED
collects that fee and transfers it to DPS through a Reimbursable
Services Agreement (RSA). She then deferred to someone from DPS
to explain that particular fee.
1:25:17 PM
GARY LEE, Criminal Justice Planner, Division of Statewide
Services, Department of Public Safety, answered that the $37 fee
is a direct charge to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
and $10 is a processing fee to digitize the prints and prepare
them to send to the FBI.
1:25:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that a person's Alaska crime
would appear [in ASPIN] without performing this additional
fingerprinting or background check. In the event someone ran
afoul of federal laws with regard to marijuana, would that
information be transmitted to the state, or with this additional
background check and fingerprinting, "is that what would help us
to figure that out?"
MR. LEE explained that the Alaska Public Safety Information
System (ASPIN) only records state charges, and if it was a
federal charge, Alaska would have no visibility of it unless an
additional national fingerprint database check was conducted.
1:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the fingerprinting
requirements in the State of Alaska require one full-time person
or more. He further asked the anticipated administrative burden
associated with the marijuana industry and fingerprinting, and
whether it has required bringing on additional capacity with
this new industry coming online. He requested that Mr. Lee
disregard the recurring fingerprints question, he simply would
like a sense of the requirements of the operations.
MR. LEE answered that the fingerprinting division employs four
people and they process all of the cards, and there are more
people in the records section that handle the cards as they come
in. It is "very broad based," and massage therapists,
attorneys, and any number of people go through the process. The
number of new or changed applicants through the marijuana
industry is insignificant and it has not caused any additional
personnel staffing.
1:28:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSHB 319.
1:28:55 PM
PAUL DISDIER, General Manager, Fireweed Factory LLC, offered
that Fireweed Factory, LLC is a state licensed cultivating
facility and it has a retail store in Juneau. He advised that
nine LLC members encompass the Fireweed Factory and it is a
burden every year to make sure all of the members have their
fingerprints taken, get the paperwork back to him, and then send
everything to the state to have its license renewed. The
requirement is usually during the summer and last year was the
first time "we went through this" with one of its LLC members
being in Europe and another member on vacation with their
children. This year, he said, he has already notified all of
the LLC members to begin the process. In the event this
requirement was to be extended to ten years, six years, three
years, or whatever, it would certainly be less of a burden than
every year. It was his estimation, he offered, that the
Fireweed Factory LLC probably had more LLC members than other
marijuana entities in this state. Funding for marijuana
businesses usually takes place under a group of investors with
the same type of problems his company experiences every year.
He related, that he would appreciate it if the committee would
consider changing it from "three to something."
1:31:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the applications Mr. Disdier
submitted on behalf of himself and others and asked whether any
of those applicants had been denied due to something on the
background check.
MR. DISDIER answered that everyone in his LLC had no previous
legal problems and the fingerprinting passed through "just
fine." The investors in Fireweed Factory include an attorney
and the husband of a doctor, and he opined that the committee
will see that those types of people are the types of people
investing in this industry. He pointed out that [this process]
makes one feel like they are still outlaws in a way, "where you
don't trust us, we want to make sure every year that you're not
doing any kind of illegal activity." While, he said, he
understands the reason for that requirement and he does not want
to see any illegal activity coming into this industry, but the
committee can trust a lot of the people who have invested in
this business.
1:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether he was aware of any other
competitors in this industry in Alaska who applied and was
turned down due to the background check.
MR. DISDIER replied that he has not heard of a single person.
1:33:20 PM
JANA WELTZIN, Attorney, Counsel to Hoban Law Group, advised that
she represents a good amount of the marijuana industry and
"we've done" probably 70 plus applications and nothing has been
rejected for purposes of someone not having the correct criminal
history. She related that she has companies with up to 20
investors and wrangling up a two-week timeframe in order to
obtain fingerprints and perform its renewal applications in the
middle of summer is "kinda tough." She offered hope that the
House Judiciary Standing Committee passes this piece of
legislation because it would help the industry to move more
fluidly. In echoing the previous speaker, she concurred with
not treating these legitimate businesses so much like criminals
wherein they must be checked every 12-months to see if anyone
had gotten into any trouble.
1:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she would have an
objection if the industry were treated the same as the alcohol
industry for the purposes of checking criminality and
fingerprint checks. In that regard, the Marijuana Control Board
could require checks whenever it preferred, and all transfers
would require checks, but no assumed recurring fingerprint
requirement.
MS. WELTZIN said she would not object other than as to the point
of optics because the goal is to not encourage any federal
intervention activity in the State of Alaska. In the event the
fingerprint requirement was completely deleted, which is not
exactly what Representative Kreiss-Tomkins asked, but making it
discretionary could give a bit more leverage to the federal
government to step in and advised that "you guys" are not being
proactive in making sure these licensees do not have felonies.
In the event a couple of examples of that actually took place,
it would be "really negative on our ability" to keep this
industry independent and completely state regulated, she
explained.
1:35:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that she had made a good
point which, in turn, brought into focus previous testimony. He
asked her thoughts about making the requirement every ten years.
MS. WELTZIN said that every ten years would be fine, and six
years is fine, although, a lot could happen every ten years but
she guessed she did not have too much of an opinion between six
years and ten years. She opined that at the point a person
enters into the market, they should have their fingerprints and
background checks for the transfer, and that possibly every ten
years is a good marker to reevaluate someone's criminal history
and remain compliant. Possibly, she suggested, every year the
person could attest through a written affidavit that they [had
not been involved in criminal activity], and that might be a
good way to keep the federal government from interfering with
Alaska's market, she mused.
1:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether she would want those
involved in the marijuana industry to be more frequently
background checked than attorneys, or the same.
MS. WELTZIN responded that attorneys "have way more lee-way,"
sometimes more than they should. They have a fiduciary duty to
their clients, they are officers of the court, and attorneys
should undergo a background check more often than currently.
Attorneys certainly get into more trouble than the marijuana
businesses, over all, she opined.
CHAIR CLAMAN mused that some of the attorneys get into trouble
by joining the legislature.
1:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked that, as a legal representative of
licensees, are there any disqualifying misdemeanors that can
prevent a licensee from being renewed or cause them to lose
their license.
[MS. WELTZIN asked for a few minutes to research the question.]
1:38:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) background checks locate felonies and not
misdemeanors. Only felonies are uploaded into NCIC unless
"we're doing something brand new." In the event there are
disqualifying misdemeanors, there is a state-by-state check, but
that is "very exhaustive and time intensive" and he asked
whether the DPS person could respond. If, in fact, one of the
purposes for the background check and finger printing was to
identify all disqualifying offenses, he said that he did not
think the standard NCIC background check "is doing it."
MS. WELTZIN clarified that she thought the question was whether
there are any disqualifying misdemeanors in the statute and
answered that there are (audio difficulties) subsection (c),
misdemeanor crimes involved in a controlled substance, violence
against a person, (audio difficulties) or dishonesty (audio
difficulties) within five years or (3) has (audio difficulties)
two years before sending the application if convicted of a class
A misdemeanor. Therefore, she commented, it appears that if the
federal background checks do not pick up on these misdemeanors,
it would be tracked by the state-by-state checks the previous
witness had mentioned.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Lee could confirm that nothing
has changed since Representative Kopp was involved in law
enforcement.
MR. LEE answered that Representative Kopp was basically correct,
the national records do indicate if there is a record, that it
can point to the state it originated. In order to do a full
background check, a person would have to inquire of each state
that the federal database reported it has a record of an
individual.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the federal record would show another
state's felony and if there was a misdemeanor in that state, it
would not list what the misdemeanor was, it would just reflect
the misdemeanor charge and then Alaska would have to follow up
with that other state.
MR. LEE advised that Chair Claman was correct, but it is through
the National Communications System, there is a message
transmission to pull up the digitize data records, and a person
does not have to actually call that state.
1:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that follow-up takes place
automatically, or whether something else must take place in
order to trigger that follow up. Under the state's current
process for these licenses, if a person applies for a license in
Alaska and 20-years ago they had a misdemeanor on their record
in some other state, he asked whether the board would have
access to what that misdemeanor was so it could rule that the
misdemeanor was not disqualifying.
MR. LEE answered that the full background check would inquire of
the state the misdemeanor originated in to determine the charge
and its disposition.
1:42:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on CSHB 319.
[HB 319 was held over.]
HB 316-RESTRICT ACCESS MARIJUANA CRIME RECORDS
1:43:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to the sealing of certain
court records; restricting the publication of certain records of
convictions on a publicly available website; relating to public
records; and amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of
Administration."
1:43:34 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff, Representative Harriet Drummond,
Alaska State Legislature, in response to Representative Kress-
Tomkins's question asked in the previous hearing, with regard to
whether any sort of expungement or dealings took place for the
people punished or imprisoned due to prohibition, answered that
it was more of a federal law. He explained that there was an
amendment in the Constitution of the United States, and once
prohibition ended, the federal government left it up to the
states to decide how to address the remainder of the sentences
imposed during prohibition. In contrast, he pointed out,
currently the states have been ending prohibition on cannabis
and marijuana rather than the federal government.
1:45:04 PM
MR. FITZGERALD, in response to a question asked by
Representative Eastman in a previous hearing with regard to job
applications and how someone would answer the [felony] question
if they fit the criteria in the bill, he advised that
essentially, the person would write on the job application,
"Yes, I have been convicted; however, as an employer you may not
have access to it because it is a crime that was addressed and
is now legal."
1:45:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Legislative Legal and Research
Services has permission to make any technical and conforming
amendments to the bill.
1:46:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-LS1017\O.1,
Radford/Martin, 2/21/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "and"
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) was 21 years of age or older at the
time of commission of the offense; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "and"
Page 2, following line 4:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) was 21 years of age or older at the
time of commission of the offense; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 4, line 17, following "was":
Insert "21 years of age or older at the time of
commission of the offense and was"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
1:46:15 PM
MR. FITZGERALD explained that Amendment 1 clarifies that for
this to apply, the individual would have had to be 21-years of
age or older during the issuing of the citation, and he advised
that this amendment was worked out with the Department of Law
(DOL) and the Alaska Court System (ACS). He remarked that when
the bill was originally drafted, it was believed that because
the citation to be given would have included a "minor in
possession of" or a "minor using whatever it may be" that it
would not override it. However, he advised, this amendment
clarifies that the individual would have had to have been 21-
years of age at the time, which is what is currently legal.
1:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there are any potential
convictions out there for something that occurred when someone
was 18-20 years of age.
MR. FITZGERALD advised that the sponsor's office had been
notified of some convictions; however, if the person was below
the age of 21 when the citation was given, this would not
pertain to those individuals.
1:47:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that that creates an
interesting situation where, it was confidential if the person
was 21-years of age and did something, but if they were younger,
it was not confidential.
MR. FITZGERALD explained that the idea behind the bill is that
if a person would have been legally possessing marijuana at the
time, before the state legalized marijuana, the person's record
will be made confidential. In the event the person was under-
age, then "even if you had it now, and you were under-age, then
it would still be minor in possession."
1:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:49:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that an issue discussed during the
previous hearing related to charges, and he asked whether this
confidentiality should deal with the single charge, or whether
the charges are broader.
MR. FITZGERALD answered that this bill applies to the "stand
alone charges," and this is solely the conviction of possession.
1:49:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which of the following two options
the sponsor prefers, narrowly tailoring it to the sole
conviction of possession, or broadly relating to one of many
different charges.
CHAIR CLAMAN said, "You mean, what does the bill do?"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that between those two options,
he would like to know where the sponsor stands because it was
the topic of conversation during the last hearing.
1:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP declared a point of order. He commented
that it does not really matter what the sponsor wants to do, the
question is "what does the bill do."
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that if this is the bill sponsor's bill,
isn't the sponsor's position reflected by the bill they
submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is asking the sponsor's
representative to confirm that ...
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Fitzgerald that he could confirm that
the bill represents the sponsor's intent.
MR. FITZGERALD stated that the bill does reflect the sponsor's
intent.
1:51:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 316, Version
30-LS1017\O, Martin, 2/8/18, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 316(JUD) moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:52:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.
HB 330-DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO
1:59:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to disclose confidential information in an
investigation or proceeding, including a lease royalty audit,
appeal, or request for reconsideration and issue a protective
order limiting the persons who have access to the confidential
information."
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Legislative Legal and Research
Services has permission to make any technical amendments and
conforming changes to the bill.
2:00:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
GH2820\A.2, Radford, 2/23/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "in an investigation or proceeding,
including a lease royalty audit, appeal, or request
for reconsideration"
Insert "during a royalty or net profit share
audit or appeal"
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "in an investigation or proceeding of the
department, including a lease audit, appeal, or
request for reconsideration"
Insert "during a royalty or net profit share
audit or appeal"
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "lease"
Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or
appeal"
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "investigation or proceeding"
Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or
appeal"
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "lease"
Following "royalty"
Insert "or net profit share"
2:02:08 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that the intent of Amendment 2 is to
restrict the disclosures of confidential information made by the
commissioner of the Department of Nature Resources (DNR) to
"royalty or net profit share audits for appeals." This
amendment "kind of tightens in" the authority the department was
seeking because it strikes a balance between the concerns
expressed by the industry and the needs of DNR to efficiently
process these cases. This language will still allow DNR to
process the vast majority of its cases in which it needs to
disclose confidential information and create protective orders,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected to the adoption of
Amendment 2.
2:03:39 PM
ED KING, Legislative Liaison, Commissioner's Office, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), advised that Amendment 2 would
further narrow the scope of the commissioner's authority rather
than being a general power to adjudicate and resolve issues and
resolve audits or appeals related to information that is held
confidential. This amendment would restrict that authority
solely to royalty issues and net profit share issues. Mr. King
advised that the vast majority of the issues requiring these
types of protective orders are, in fact, in the royalty audit
and net profit share. However, he pointed out, there are issues
outside of royalties and net profit share that DNR would prefer
to also adjudicate under the protective orders. The preference
of DNR is that Amendment 2 does not pass; however, if it is the
will of the committee, DNR appreciates the efforts being made.
2:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether it was Mr. King's
understanding that this would also protect the confidentiality
of geological data or sensitive data as to what a field might
contain.
MR. KING responded that with Amendment 2, DNR would no longer
have that authority to issue protective orders to resolve those
types of issues. He explained that without Amendment 2, it is
DNR's reading of the bill that it would have the ability to
resolve those issues through the commissioner's office without
going to the court system and obtaining a protective order.
2:05:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted Mr. King's statement
regarding the strong majority of instances in which a protective
order would be issued that would relate to royalties and net
profit share. He requested examples of those other issues that
could take advantage of this tool were it available to the
commissioner.
MR. KING answered that a specific example that DNR had to deal
with is related to private property owners with a mineral
interest surrounding a geologic structure. For example, a
resource specifically in oil and gas, is when DNR makes a
decision related to the extent of the resource and to what
extent it provides revenue to the resource owner, DNR's decision
could impact how much money that individual would earn from the
production of those resources. The department did have a fairly
rare issue in Cook Inlet approximately 10-years ago, and the
issue could not be resolved internally because DNR did not have
the ability to disclose that confidential data to the property
owner because the data was collected by the operator. In that
circumstance, that audit sat in the commissioner's office until
the appellant finally went to court and the court issued a
protective order, at that point, DNR was able to resolve the
case, he explained.
2:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKIN asked whether there are any other
examples.
MR. KING reiterated that one is currently being litigated, and
he is not aware of any other circumstances.
2:07:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the audit is being litigated or the
protective order.
MR. KING answered that that is a different and separate issue
related to the same (audio difficulties) but it is currently in
the superior court and the protective order in that case has not
yet been issued.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that is the main issue being
litigated or was it being litigated over the audit as well.
MR. KING responded that the case is not related to an audit.
2:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the regional native
corporations own the minerals below the surface, and if
Amendment 2 does not pass, she asked whether that would allow
the state to also obtain information on the regional native
corporations.
MR. KING reiterated testimony from a previous hearing advising
that the department, under this bill, does not have the ability
to obtain any new information, the information is given to DNR
by the producer. The question is how can DNR use that
information to adjudicate when there is an appeal, and under
Representative Reinbold's circumstance, the mental health trust
or the native corporation would have a lease with the producer,
and they would have to administer and adjudicate their own
appeals around that issue. In the specific case being discussed
here, where DNR has this private landowner adjacent to a
resource, there may or may not be a lease issued that needs to
be resolved there. In those circumstances, the appellant is
bringing the appeal and has standing due to its financial
interest as an adjacent landowner. In those situations, DNR
cannot share the producer's information with this private third-
party without some protections over that confidential data, he
explained.
2:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested another example of how the
sponsor envisions Amendment 2 having a positive impact on a
particular situation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she believes the one
example being litigated today and another example from ten years
ago, does not provide a compelling circumstance. She related
that she is uncomfortable with the ability of DNR to release
what otherwise would be confidential information to someone
outside of the department. While she realizes the need for this
legislation, she would feel far more comfortable with the bill
if it was limited to the circumstances where it was actually
most needed, she said.
2:10:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she is supportive of this
amendment because the legislature does not need to chase
investment out of this state, she believes in private property
rights and understands there is a point where some information
is needed. She pointed out that Amendment 2 narrows the focus,
and during the previous hearing the department did not object to
the change. She said she would be a yes vote on the amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified for Representative Reinbold that DNR was
not in possession Amendment 2 until today.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that when people had testified
previously, "they said" the primary responsibility was being
even with this issue, and at the time there was no objection to
it, which is why she will be supporting the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
2:12:18 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Stutes,
Reinbold, Kopp, and LeDoux voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 2. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Claman voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-
2.
2::19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 330, Version
30-GH2820\A, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objections, CSHB 330 moved out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
2:13:53 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Vote 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB316 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver O 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Updated Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Additional Document-Legislative Research Report Convicstions for Marijuana Possession 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 HJUD Final Votes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB319 ver D 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Summary of Changes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-AMIA Letter 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-NCSL Report 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-Marijuana Control Board Minutes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |