Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/07/2018 01:00 PM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2018
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to background investigation requirements for
state employees whose job duties require access to certain
federal tax information; relating to persons under contract with
the state with access to certain federal tax information;
establishing state personnel procedures required for employee
access to certain federal tax information; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 219
SHORT TITLE: CRIM HIST CHECK: ST EMPLOYEES/CONTRACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/07/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/17 (H) JUD, FIN
03/07/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 219 on behalf of the House
Rules Committee by request of the Governor.
CAROL BEECHER, Director
Division of Child Support Services
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 219, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:22 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Representatives Claman, Reinbold,
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, Eastman, and Stutes (alternate for
Representative Fansler) were present at the call to order.
Representative LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 219-CRIM HIST CHECK: ST EMPLOYEES/CONTRACTORS
1:08:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 219, "An Act relating to background investigation
requirements for state employees whose job duties require access
to certain federal tax information; relating to persons under
contract with the state with access to certain federal tax
information; establishing state personnel procedures required
for employee access to certain federal tax information; and
providing for an effective date."
1:09:53 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, described HB 219
as straight-forward, and he paraphrased the sectional analysis
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Amends AS 12.62.400 by adding a new subsection.
This will require an agency to submit the fingerprints
of current or prospective employees or contractors
whose job duties require access to federal tax
information (defined in AS 39.55.015(e)(3) and
36.30.960(d)(3)) to the Department of Public Safety
for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to obtain a criminal history record. Defines "agency",
"employee" and "contractor".
Section 2
Amends AS 36.30 by adding a new section.
This section establishes state personnel procedures
for obtaining and submitting fingerprints for current
or prospective contractors if a contract with the
state requires access to federal tax information.
Defines "agency", "contractor" and "federal tax
information".
Section 3
Amends AS 39 by adding a new chapter.
This new chapter addresses state personnel procedures
related to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.010
This section explains the purpose of the chapter-- to
establish procedures to safeguard federal tax
information which will apply to a current or
prospective state employee whose job duties require
access to federal tax information.
Adds AS 39.55.015
This section requires current and prospective state
employees whose job duties require access to federal
tax information to provide information to an agency
for a state and national criminal history record
check. Defines "agency", "employee", "federal tax
information", "return", and "return information".
Section 4
Provides the effective date of July 1, 2017
1:12:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether this requires repeat fingerprinting
or whether it is a one-time deal.
MR. SPANOS answered that the fingerprint requirement is a result
of IRS Publication 1075 with a ten-year requirement that
fingerprinting be re-run, or at least a background check re-run.
1:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Spanos whether he had
said it was every ten years.
MR. SPANOS answered in the affirmative.
1:13:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to HB 219, [Sec. 2, AS
36.30.960] page 2, lines 26-27, which read as follows:
(c) A background investigation under this section,
including a state and national criminal history check, is
confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the meaning of "confidential" in
this context. Obviously, it is serving the purpose of getting
information to someone and he asked who receives the information
and who does not receive the information.
MR. SPANOS responded that confidential information means that
the information cannot be given to someone outside of the
individual who ran the background check, and to specific
agencies requiring that information. For example, if it is a
tax division employee, the tax division would need to know
whether there was a crime involving a crime of dishonesty. The
Tax Division would know that limited bit of information from the
background check in order verify whether the employee should
continue working in the division.
1:14:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what happens when a background
check reveals that a state employee or applicant is a serial
sexual harasser.
MR. SPANOS replied that a policy has been written addressing the
crimes the Tax Division is concerned with as a division. The
policy also relates to the Child Support Services Division
(CSSD) and its concerns around sexual crimes against children,
those crimes would preclude a person from employment in CSSD.
In the event it is a general sexual crime, that should be
disclosed on their job application, and he opined that there are
some requirements as to the dates of the crimes. He explained
that the Tax Division verifies the information the applicant
disclosed with the information contained within the criminal
history background check.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that verification is for
new applicants and current employees.
MR. SPANOS answered that the background check is for new
applicants. As to the current employees, if it is within the
last 5-10 years and it is a crime of dishonesty, the division
would go back and review their application. Although, if it is
outside of that realm, the division has not requested a detailed
criminal history check regarding current employees. The
division would only see the crimes it has identified as
concerning, and for the new employees, it would verify that the
information provided on their application disclosed all of their
crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that if he had state employees
working under his supervision, he would want to know whether
they had issues that may not fall under crimes against children
but might still be relevant to whether his staff was at risk of
being sexually harassed, for example. The state is currently
paying the fees for the criminal background check, at what point
could that information be disclosed to Mr. Spanos as a hiring
manager or a supervisor investigating a workplace issue or is
that information just not available at all, he asked.
MR. SPANOS responded that if the information would be available
to a hiring manager, it would not be available to a supervisor
looking at other discipline. He related that they worked
closely with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency within the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) in developing
its procedures. The Alaska Labor Relations Agency was quite
explicit that there had to be a job nexus to the crimes the
division was considering and the duties the person would perform
on the job. While, he said, a sexual harassment history is
concerning, that crime was not specific enough to the job duties
the person would perform for the division to put it into a
policy for these purposes.
1:17:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what departments would be affected
by HB 219, and what employees of what departments or agencies
would be required to submit to fingerprinting.
MR. SPANOS answered that within the Department of Revenue (DOR),
it would include the Tax Division and the Child Support Services
Division (CSSD); and within the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), it would include the Division of Employment
& Training Services Unemployment Insurance because those three
agencies receive federal tax information, he explained.
1:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that this would only involve
prospective employees.
MR. SPANOS clarified that all of the Tax Division's current and
prospective employees would undergo a background check. The
verification that the information on the background check agreed
with the information listed on the original job application was
only for new employees. He related that the division would not
pull all of the original job applications for its current
employees, of which have been employed there sometimes 20-30
years and it would be difficult to find those documents.
1:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she does not understand
why, if the information is available, he would not simply glance
at what the people had said when they were first employed.
MR. SPANOS clarified that if [the background check revealed] a
"crime of dishonesty," the division would absolutely go back and
verify whether the person disclosed that information at the time
of hire. In the event it was any other crime, the division
would not even be notified that that showed up on the background
check for current employees. For example, he advised, when the
division first started talking about this, it had already run
background checks on all of its employees and it simply had not
performed the fingerprinting portion. The policy is in place,
backgrounds checks have been run, some employees expressed
concern regarding a DUI on their record and those employees were
advised that the division would not receive that information
because it was not a crime of dishonesty.
1:20:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the background checks on
folks is only reported to the Tax Division if it reports crimes
of dishonesty.
MR. SPANOS explained that the Criminal Investigation Unit within
the Department of Revenue (DOR) performs background checks and
receives the full criminal history background information. In
an effort to remain impartial and look only at the facts, the
agency requesting the background criminal history check does not
want to know the person's full criminal history and to simply
look at the person's convictions of crimes of dishonesty. In
that regard, the agency would determine whether the crime had a
nexus to the job and whether that agency would retain or not
employ the person based on that information.
1:21:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether he would want to be advised
if a criminal background check reported that one of his
employees was convicted of domestic violence or murder because
murder does not involve honesty or dishonesty, it could be a
"very honest murder."
MR. SPANOS commented that that is a difficult area and it was
certainly discussed often. He reiterated that in working with
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, it was clear the crimes had
to have a direct nexus with the job duties performed for the
division.
1:22:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted his understanding that this bill is driven by
federal regulations which essentially say that the federal tax
information could not be released unless the entity performed a
certain amount of background checks. Therefore, the background
checks being requested is driven by the federal regulations that
say, "these are the people that we have problems getting access
to, the background checks and those who don't." He acknowledged
that he did not know how it was being applied, but to add more
complexity to the topic, under federal law, unless it has
changed, all felonies are considered crimes of dishonesty.
Under the federal evidence code, murder would be a crime of
dishonesty, and under the Alaska evidence code as ruled by the
Alaska Supreme Court, a crime of dishonesty is in fact something
that you think of as dishonest. Theft, for example, all theft
offenses are crimes of dishonesty, murder would not necessarily
be a crime of dishonesty. Mr. Spanos probably cannot answer how
that is applied, but what rates as a crime of dishonesty sounds
like what the federal government is most interested in to allow
Alaska's people to have access to its federal records, of which
is probably driven by the federal government and not by state
policy.
1:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation that on one
note, the discussion is about employees who are already hired.
MR. SPANOS answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that this is simply a
question of retention or non-retention.
MR. SPANOS said that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that under the "honest
murder" scenario, the honest murderer would have been hired
previously by DOR and whatever criteria would have been vetted,
the honest or dishonest murderer would not be affected by this
bill.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct, and he reiterated that for new hires, the division
would verify that the person had fully disclosed on their job
application any crimes that needed to be disclosed. As to the
current employees, due to the union representation and the fact
that they had been with the division for a long period of time
without issue, the division did not want to open the "whole can
of worms" and look at every crime. Specifically, he reiterated,
the division was told that it could not, in fact, look at every
crime for retention or non-retention.
1:24:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the fiscal note and
noted the "sort of" legislative history of this policy, and I
noted why this fiscal note differs blah, blah, blah, this is an
updated version of the 2018 legislative session, I also see it
was prepared by Greg Cashen, Acting Commissioner of the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, which was awhile
ago and wondering if this has been through the wringer before,
one or more times."
MR. SPANOS commented that this is actually the first hearing on
HB 219, and on any bill involving fingerprinting for the purpose
of background checks for federal tax information.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the reason Greg
Cashen was the Acting Commissioner was because Commissioner
Heidi Drygas was on vacation.
MR. SPANOS replied that he could not speak to that question and
opined that the fiscal note was drafted last session. Although,
he said, the Tax Division did request hearings last session,
none were heard, and this is the first hearing on the bill.
1:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Governor Bill Walker's
4/6/17 letter directed to The Honorable Bryce Edgmon, and asked
why the governor invoked Article III, Section 18, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
MR. SPANOS answered that he would have to get back to her.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the second paragraph of that
letter and noted that Governor Walker "talks about all these
different reasons, the IRS, Support Services, the Bureau of
Fiscal Services, and Medicare/Medicaid, you know, services."
She asked why Governor Walker invoked all of that information
into this letter.
MR. SPANOS explained that for the second paragraph he could
speak to "Publication 1075 in 26 U.S.C. 6103(p)(4)(C)," those
are basically the IRS's statute and a publication that dictates
what the states need to do in order to be compliant with the
IRS's requirement, part of which is a background check. Mr.
Spanos pointed to language "further down," and advised the
agencies affected are within the Department of Revenue,
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Federal
Services, and the federal tax information directly affects child
support. He related that he could not speak to the Social
Security Administration, and he was not certain whether the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services receive federal tax
information.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative
Reinbold's previous question regarding why Governor Walker
invoked Article III, Section 18, of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, explained that it allows the governor to submit
bills to the legislature.
1:28:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Governor Walker's letter
that "goes on and on" about the federal government. She noted
that on "line 2, it says 'requires access to federal tax
information,' it says 'to certain.'" She asked Mr. Spanos to
explain the words "require" and "certain."
MR. SPANOS responded that within the Tax Division, certain jobs
require access to the IRS data in order to fulfill the duties of
their job. For example, if an employee is auditing a
corporation, part of the job would be to verify that the income
they reported to the state matches the income they reported to
the IRS. The employee would pull the federal return and verify
that information. He advised that Carol Beecher was online and
she could better speak to CSSD and she had mentioned to Mr.
Spanos that its employees are also required as part of their job
duties to have access to that federal tax information.
1:30:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many people have access to how
many people's records.
MR. SPANOS replied that the division is very strict on who can
access what information and it is all tracked in the system.
While there is the potential for a great deal of access, it is
safeguarded and limited in what information the employees can
actually view as part of their job duties. Within the Tax
Division there are approximately 100 employees, and within child
support there are approximately 200 employees, so within the DOR
approximately 300 employees have access to federal tax
information. As far as the number of information, its very
voluminous as it would be all of the federal tax information
provided by Alaskans to the federal government, and potentially
a great deal more from other states. In the event a corporate
filer may or may not file in Alaska, the Tax Division would
likely have that federal tax information access if needed.
1:31:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the approximately 300
employees and asked roughly how much data those employees have
access to on federal income tax.
MR. SPANOS asked whether she was asking about the numbers of
returns.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that "any access to federal income
tax data, these 300 employees. How many people do they have
access to tens of thousands of people, do they have access to
all of the corporations, native corporations, what kind of
access do they have?"
MR. SPANOS answered that there are roughly 400,000 filers in the
State of Alaska for federal tax returns, and the division's
employees would have access to that information. Again, he
said, the division tracks it very closely. Currently, he
offered, only approximately six employees can access that
information because the division is still in the process of
setting up the safeguards. He explained that access will be
expanded to other employees but the IRS has strict rules, and in
May the IRS will audit the division and will request as follows:
all of the division's records, a record of who accessed the
information, for what purpose, what was done with the
information, where the information is stored, whether it was
given to anyone, and whether it was destroyed. He related that
the audit is thorough and the information is tracked and
safeguarded closely. As far as the database, he explained,
there are roughly 400,000 individuals from the State of Alaska
and approximately 17,000 corporations that file state returns of
which the division has access.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the committee now has four current
fiscal notes from March 2018, and that is all that is expected,
the fifth fiscal note was issued in 2017.
1:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that there are roughly 300
employees with access to 400,000 filers and 17,000 corporations
and asked whether this bill expands anything in any manner.
MR. SPANOS answered, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to HB 219, [Sec. 2, AS
36.30.960(d)(2)] page 3, lines 1-2, which read as follows:
(2) "contractor" means a person who has
applied for or been awarded a contract with a state
agency and includes a subcontractor;
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked why a contractor with the state
would need access to federal income tax data.
MR. SPANOS answered that currently, there are six IT developer
contractors who have designed and developed the tax revenue
management system. As part of that, they design the reports to
run. For example, he explained that in the event a corporate
auditor wants to run a report on a company and verify its
federal tax information, these contractors are the people who
design and develop that report, and they may even test that
report. While, they have potential access, they would never go
out and look for individual or corporate information, but they
may have potential access by developing the reports and testing
those reports, he offered.
1:34:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether it would help if the state
had an income tax, and how would this bill impact a state income
tax.
MR. SPANOS responded that the information would become more
useful. Currently, he said, individual income tax information
is used for tobacco tax, mining tax, alcohol tax, and some of
the state's other excise taxes. It is quite rare the division
uses it, but it has needed it for a current address, or for the
mining tax and its income because that is a tax based on income.
In the event the state had an individual income tax, the
division would likely design the database to automatically match
income reported to Alaska to income reported to the IRS, and
flag those that do not match for review by an examiner or an
auditor.
1:35:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether it would be helpful if the
state implemented an income tax.
MR. SPANOS explained that the bill does not help with that
issue, the bill allows the division to continue to receive that
federal tax data. As to whether it would be helpful, the
division can do that now as the division has had access to the
federal tax information (FTI) for years. This legislation
allows the division to continue to have access to the federal
tax information because the IRS told all 50 states that in order
to continue to use the federal tax information (FTI), the
background checks are required, he explained.
1:36:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what is an FTI, and how long as
the state had the FTI.
MR. SPANOS responded that the federal tax information (FTI)
sharing agreements with the state and the federal government
goes back years and years. There were a few years when the tax
division did not receive data because it was transitioning to a
new system. He explained that the division experienced some
findings that there were some unsecure computer databases and
rather than fix the old databases, the division did not receive
data while the new database was being built. The division is
now in compliance and receives that data, he said.
1:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern about the many data
breaches on the military and everyone, and she asked whether it
was a liability for the state to have this kind of personal
information. She said she was unsure how the state would know
whether this information is safe because it is confidential, and
that bothers her.
1:37:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether, as an elected Alaskan, his
information is available to the division through the sharing
arrangement that is already in place.
MR. SPANOS responded that if Representative Eastman filed a
federal tax return, his information would be available in the
database. In the event an employee ran his information, that
employee would be subject to discipline up to and including
termination because there would be no reason for the employee to
run his information, and the division would see that it was run.
1:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that if someone would be in trouble
for using his information, why is his information available in
the first place.
MR. SPANOS responded that the individual tax information cannot
be narrowed to, for example, only taxpayer information. He
related that an agency can either choose to receive individual
information, or not receive that information. The Tax Division
receives individual information because it has tax types for
which the information is useful. He related that Ms. Beecher
could speak to the CSSD because far more individuals are
impacted by having that individual information. The CSSD has
the ability to receive money that is due to the state, rather
than have the federal government issue a refund to that taxpayer
and then garnish that money.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that by way of example, if he was a
member of a corporation and filed a corporate tax return with
the state, the Tax Division would look at both what this
corporation filed with the federal government and what it filed
with the state government to determine whether those numbers
matched.
MR. SPANOS said that Chair Claman was correct. In the event he
was a shareholder in "X Corporation," he has a filing
requirement with the state and the federal government, and the
division could verify that information. He added that it is
also quite useful when asked questions by the legislature. For
example, if a new tax was proposed that involved any sort of
income component from individuals, wage tax, income tax, and
anything in that regard, the division would not necessarily look
at individuals, it would access that database in order to
determine what the revenue impact to the state would be on any
sort of new legislation.
1:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the period of time the state
was not receiving information and asked whether any significant
harm was caused to the state by not receiving this information.
MR. SPANOS replied that this was at a time the division was
designing, developing, testing, and rolling out a new system and
its auditors were heavily engaged in that process. Other than
the oil and gas production group, which kept all of its audits
current, all of the other audits suffered. Therefore, he said
it was not a direct result of not having the IRS data, it was a
result of being completely overworked in designing, developing,
and rolling out a new system, so it was not a direct impact.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the criminal background
information being limited to crimes of dishonesty and asked what
is driving that particular label and whether that is simply what
the IRS is requiring as an absolute minimum.
MR. SPANOS answered that the IRS requires a policy in place and
to abide by that policy, which includes a fingerprint component.
The IRS left it up to each individual state to draft that
policy, and the policy was drafted between the Tax Division, the
Child Support Services Division (CSSD), and the Criminal
Investigation Unit within the Department of Revenue (DOR) and in
working with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency.
1:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that this limitation to crimes
of dishonesty does not appear to include common sense because
dishonesty appears to be so narrow. He said, "What about me
honestly, you know, releasing that confidential information when
I'm not supposed to," and asked whether that would be caught up
under the division's dishonesty provision.
MR. SPANOS advised that under current law, the person would be
subject to criminal fines and imprisonment. He opined that the
penalty was $5,000 and up to three years in jail for releasing
that information, so the person would not have a job with the
division if they were in jail. Certainly, he pointed out,
disclosing confidential information to someone outside of the
agency would be dishonest and the division strictly follows that
confidentiality. While, he said, he does not know whether it
was specifically noted in that policy, the division has other
policies regarding confidentiality and breaching that
confidentiality. In the event an employee purposely breached
that confidentiality, the division would certainly push for
termination, he said.
1:43:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that those policies would not be
caught up under the criminal background investigation unless
they fell under the criteria the division set forth. He
described that the division set the criteria so narrow that if
he had been in jail for releasing confidential information, was
released, applied for, and was hired for a job, but he said he
was never in jail, and because he was not dinged for dishonesty,
he fell through the cracks.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that Representative Eastman's statement
that a crime involving dishonesty is a narrow path is simply not
true. He explained that crimes of dishonesty under both Alaska
law and federal law are quite broad, and the crime he described
in which he was in jail for disclosing confidential information
is, in fact, a crime involving dishonesty. The mere suggestion
that a crime involving dishonesty catches a narrow number of
people is not true, crimes of dishonesty actually catches a wide
swath of people who might not even know their crimes involved
dishonesty, he remarked.
MR. SPANOS reiterated that DOR's Criminal Investigation Unit is
the agency that runs those background checks and it works
closely with both the Tax Division and CSSD. The investigators
are aware of the concerns for each section and discussed what
the definition of crimes of dishonesty is for both sections, and
what crimes the division would want to know about. In the event
those crimes showed up on the background checks, the Criminal
Investigation Unit would notify the Tax Division and the
division would certainly not hire that individual. In the event
the crimes related to a current employee, a committee would
discuss the "nature of that" and whether to retain the employee.
In the event someone was in jail for disclosing confidential
information, unless there was some information he did not know
about, the division certainly would not retain that employee, he
said.
1:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario wherein he sold
confidential information on the black market and asked whether
that would be caught up under the current background check and
whether it would trigger some type of alarm.
MR. SPANOS answered that if the person was convicted for the
crime it absolutely would show up on the background check, and
absolutely that would be something within which he would
recommend termination.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the mention that currently
Mr. Spanos is "kind of reticent" to go to current employees
because they may have worked in the division for a long period
of time and "nothing has happened" so they are assumed to be
doing okay. Except, he said, he does not see anything in the
language or testimony that limits that provision to employees
who have worked in the division for a long period of time. In
the event someone had been hired for a month, and this bill
became law, would that person be considered a preexisting
employee and the division would not look at that person, such
that the person had been convicted of sexual harassment and on
the job for a month ...
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that he did not hear a question and moved
to Representative LeDoux.
1:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that this [legislation] appears
to be as a result of the federal government, and she asked who
can advise whether the committee is going by the federal
definition of honesty, or the state's definition. The federal
definition of honesty is broader and would probably encompass
"just about everything."
MR. SPANOS answered that the federal government has not dictated
what a crime of dishonesty is and the federal government has not
noted that the policy should contain the phrase "crimes of
dishonesty." In fact, he offered, that phrase was determined
within the department as crimes of interest. The Alaska Labor
Relations Agency was concerned about the nexus to the job, and
that the department would not be allowed to terminate an
employee based on a DUI on their criminal history record.
Therefore, the division had to look at certain types of crimes
that had that nexus to the job duties and crimes of dishonesty
is that nexus. The department did not want employees releasing
confidential information or stealing cash from the Tax Division,
and the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) was concerned
about crimes against children.
1:49:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the federal government required
exactly.
MR. SPANOS responded that the federal government required that
the states have a policy in place, which included performing a
background check on their employees which included
fingerprinting. Thereby, he explained, the federal government
is leaving it up to the states to determine what crimes were of
concern.
CHAIR CLAMAN speculated that because it is clearly a state
policy and the federal government is not requiring it, it is
fair to believe they are applying the Alaska definition of
crimes involving dishonesty.
1:50:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that Chair Claman was probably
correct. She surmised that in the event a person had been
convicted of a DUI and they answered no to the conviction
question, and the DUI showed up on the background, it would not
make a difference.
MR. SPANOS replied that it would make a difference if the person
had reported on their employment application that they did not
have a criminal history and a DUI showed up, the division would
interpret that as being dishonest in the job application
process.
1:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that it appears the legislation is
mirroring the Security and Exchange Commission requirements for
financial advisors, investment planners, and the folks dealing
with tax information.
MR. SPANOS replied that Representative Kopp was correct in that
it is similar and, in fact, under the current statutes there are
approximately 18 jobs identified that require fingerprinting as
part of their job duties, as follows: the Alaska Bar
Association, Board of Governors for the Alaska Bar Association,
Board of Elections, teachers, a whole list of 18 different
duties that require fingerprinting, and the Tax Division would
be added to that list.
1:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that the division is looking at
this legislation for revenue personnel because they perform tax
audits on individuals and corporations.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Kopp was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD) personnel and noted that they are
included because they deal with unemployment matters on
businesses and individuals.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Kopp was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that "everything has a nexus" to
people who have federal tax information, which is the reason the
dishonesty issue is so important.
MR. SPANOS responded that Representative Kopp was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to a background check wherein
someone had gotten into trouble for the release of confidential
information, and he asked whether they would be precluded from
an employment position under HB 219.
MR. SPANOS answered that the person would be precluded from
employment.
1:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that if honesty is so important
why not perform a lie detector test.
MR. SPANOS answered that it did not cross their minds.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the division would be amenable
to an amendment.
MR. SPANOS responded that he personally would not be interested
in an amendment but he could discuss this issue with this policy
development committee. He explained that the Tax Division was
most interested in a conviction because it is black and white
and easy to determine that a person was found guilty in court or
had pled guilty.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that the Polygraph Protection Act
protects all state, municipal, and federal employees against
polygraph interviews until they are the subject of a criminal
investigation. In that regard, the polygraph test is
confidential with many regulations around it and every workplace
must have the Polygraph Protection Act. Every employee has the
right to refuse unless they are the focus of an investigation,
and at that time they can be asked by the investigating agency
to submit to a polygraph test.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that the last time he hired a private
polygraph examiner, he did not like the cost. The notion to
begin polygraph testing every state employee in addition to the
federal prohibition, the fiscal consequence would be quite high.
1:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that it is unbelievable the
state has already given 300 employees access to tax data that
they could share and cause tremendous harm to a corporation or
an individual, and yet a polygraph test cannot be taken. She
asked whether the committee can review the division's discipline
policy, and how it intends to catch these people.
MR. SPANOS responded that the discipline policy may have already
been shared with this committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that his staff will make copies and
distribute it to the committee.
1:56:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that page 2 of the bill often
refers to agency. She referred to [Section 1, AS
12.62.400(c)(1), which read as follows:
(1) "agency" means a department, Office of
the Governor, or entity in the executive branch,
including the University of Alaska, public or quasi-
public corporations, boards or commissions, and the
Alaska Railroad Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether any of the above-listed
employees have access to personal tax data.
MR. SPANOS answered that those agencies are fingerprinted
currently and the division wants to be added to that list.
1:57:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the above agency employees
have access to personal [tax information], including Governor
Walker or his staff.
MR. SPANOS responded that they do not. In fact, he explained,
even within the DOR people do not have access, and the Alaska
tax information is not shared outside of the division.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that only the Division of
Revenue ...
MR. SPANOS reiterated that not everyone in the Department of
Revenue (DOR) has access to the tax information or would be
allowed to see the information. Access to information would be
allowed only within the Tax Division or CSSD, and there must be
a job-related reason for those employees to look up that
information. He advised that people have been terminated for
looking up information they had no business looking up.
1:58:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for confirmation that this
legislation is not expanding access to the governor's office,
executive branch, the university, or anyone, to any income tax
data or corporate tax data, to any new people.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Reinbold was correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that in the most absolute legal sense, the
entire executive branch works for Governor Walker and what the
Tax Division knows, as a legal matter, Governor Walker knows
even if he is not looking at the information. He clarified that
that does not mean Governor Walker is requesting the information
and if he asked for the tax information, he would be asked the
reason for the request.
1:58:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that this bill refers to other
agencies "over and over again" and it is important to discuss
the concerns others may have, she opined. She asked Mr. Spanos
to explain, other than the IT people, who are the other
contractors that would possibly gain access.
MR. SPANOS answered that currently, no other contractors would
have access to that data. If, in the future, the division
outsourced audits, as some states do, and an auditor were to
come in and audit a corporation, they would have limited access
to that information. The division does not foresee that
happening as it believes the division is doing quite a good job
with its current auditors, he remarked. Other than the staff
designing and developing the IT system, there are no other
contractors, he advised.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for confirmation that this is only
limited to potential audit contractors and it does not expand to
any other people having access to any other data.
MR. SPANOS responded that Representative Reinbold was correct,
the state's confidentiality statutes lay out who can view tax
information and that would include federal tax information.
2:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the crimes of dishonesty
would be wide enough to include a theft conviction.
CHAIR CLAMAN reiterated that there is no question that theft is
a crime of dishonesty, and Mr. Spanos need not answer that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that if this legislation becomes
law and in ten years and "we're doing a whole new round of
background checks" and he had a new conviction, would Mr. Spanos
be alerted to that information, and if it did not fall under a
crime of dishonesty would it be waived off and Mr. Spanos would
not be alerted.
MR. SPANOS clarified that the policy is already in effect and
the division had already performed background checks on all of
its employees, it simply had not performed the fingerprinting
piece which is the FBI background check. One employee was
terminated based on that background check being returned and the
policy in effect is being followed; however, the fingerprinting
cannot take place without authorization or authority from the
legislature. He asked whether the question was that in ten
years from now when the background check is run again whether a
new crime would be revealed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Mr. Spanos receives an alert
when theft or dishonesty is revealed. He offered a scenario
that he, as a state employee, had been working there for however
long and after ten years his renewal was performed, would Mr.
Spanos be alerted of his domestic violence conviction because it
did not fall under his definition of crimes of dishonesty.
MR. SPANOS advised that under current state policies and rules,
there is a requirement that an employee notify their employer
within 24 hours of being "arrested or convicted." Therefore,
the next time the background check was run, the Criminal
Investigation Unit would check that against the previous
background check to determine what was new. That unit would
then ask Mr. Spanos whether the employee had notified him within
that 24-hour timeframe requirement. He explained that that
would be an issue of honesty as to whether the employee followed
procedure and notified him.
2:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that a good attorney could decide
that the state had some degree of liability if something
criminal happened in workplace and the division had the
opportunity to identify a pattern of behavior through the
background information. Except, because the scope was narrowed
and it "chose not act on it or to know about it - could have,
but chose not to," whether that scenario had been considered.
He asked whether attorneys had ruled out any state liability in
that type of situation.
MR. SPANOS replied that the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWF), Alaska Labor Relations Agency advised the
Tax Division that the scope needed to be narrow and he was
uncertain whether they had checked with attorneys on that issue.
Certainly, he pointed out, they were concerned with case law and
jurisprudence which required that an employee not be terminated
based on information from a background check that did not have a
direct nexus to their job duties. Therefore, he related,
knowing that information and not being able to do anything with
it was useless to the division, and it did not want to know that
information about its employees if they could not act on the
information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the committee had
considered a look back window for the relatively new employees
who had worked less than five years and did not have that
established record, and whether the division should look more
comprehensively at that criminal background.
MR. SPANOS reiterated that if the division could not act on that
information, it did not want to know the information.
2:05:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that there has been a lot of
talk around concerns of a data breach, which is important to
consider because there have been so many data breaches. Except,
she pointed out, she was unsure this bill actually adds anything
to the possibility of a data breach. The problem may be that
the federal government is handing over this information, and it
sounds like the division has access to all of the United States
citizens' tax returns. She said that the issue was not the
division's fault, but if someone was not under a criminal
investigation or not specifically applying for a job in the Tax
Division, for example, that the federal government is simply
"giving this over." For example, she pointed to CSSD and noted
that if a private attorney sues someone for back child support,
or there is a divorce action, and the attorney is trying to
obtain a party's tax returns, it is not possible to press a
button and have access to everyone's tax returns in the United
States. She explained that the attorney would have to go
through the discovery process and ask a judge to compel the
party to sign a release in order to obtain the tax returns.
While she sympathizes with Representatives Reinbold and Eastman
and anyone else with those concerns about a data breach, she
pointed out that it is not really the fault of this bill. She
said that she did not believe this bill would add to data
breaches, and it might actually limit it somewhat.
2:08:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Representative LeDoux is quite accurate
about the question of data breaches. Access to federal tax
information has been held by state governments for decades.
Whether or not that is a smart policy is really not the question
of this bill, but rather, he explained, the policy is whether
the legislature should allow the addition of fingerprinting to
the employees' background checks. He said that he does not
think the questions about data breaches and the overall policy
is the issue addressed within this bill, and he limited the
questions to relate specifically to the issue of fingerprinting
and its potential policy here. The larger question about why
the federal government has a policy essentially allowing all 50
states access to federal tax information, provided they meet the
federal requirements, is not the topic in front of the
committee. He remarked that there have been many questions
about that issue and it has been explored adequately for
purposes of deciding on this bill.
2:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that for 20 years he worked with the
Division of Statewide Service and Criminal Records and
Identification Bureau, and every time a criminal history was run
on anyone, that employee was subject to an audit. Each year, if
he could not remember why he ran a person's criminal history, he
was "in deep trouble." The process, he explained is that the
dispatcher ran the criminal history because he requested it, and
if the audit failed, it was on Representative Kopp. He further
explained that he could be charged up to a class A misdemeanor
if he did not have a criminal case he was working, or there was
a good reason for running the criminal history. He asked
whether that is the standard used in the Tax Division.
MR. SPANOS answered "Yes, absolutely," there is an audit of the
access to federal and state tax information, and the division is
very interested in why someone would be looking at that
information. He explained that the person would have had to
have an audit assigned to them in order to access the
information. For instance, he pointed out, there are large oil
and gas companies' information contained within the Tax
Division's databases, and the division is very concerned when
someone wants to look at that information but does not have a
valid reason. The division has certain disciplines and it has
terminated employees for those reasons, he explained.
2:10:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is a trigger for
everyone who accesses information.
MR. SPANOS answered that the entire system is logged, but
specific to federal tax information it is logged in a specific
location and reviewed quarterly.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that for any person who
accesses federal and state information or anything, it is all
logged.
MR. SPANOS answered in the affirmative.
2:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Spanos would be
amenable to amending the bill requiring that if a state
employee, contractor, or whoever else, has access, the person
they accessed is required to have knowledge of the abuse.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Reinbold that this
bill only relates to the fingerprinting requirement, her
question is beyond the scope of the bill and to ask a different
question.
2:12:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked why Governor Walker is carrying
this bill at this time, and whether any type of organization, or
anyone, supports this legislation.
MR. SPANOS answered that the reason Governor Walker offered this
legislation at this time is because the IRS finalized its
Publication 1075 in 2017. The IRS Publication 1075 requires the
states to be compliant, and the bill was introduced in 2017 so
it was timely. He said he is not aware of any organizations
that support or are against this legislation.
2:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this is basically a
request from the federal government.
MR. SPANOS answered that through the IRS Publication 1075,
fingerprinting is required in order to continue to receive the
data. Although, he noted, the Tax Division does not have to be
compliant; however, the division wants to be compliant in order
to receive that tax information. That tax information has been
used in audits bringing in about $2 million per year simply by
pushing a button, he offered.
2:13:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that if the state becomes non-
compliant by not passing this legislation, "basically they just
don't get as much access so basically protect people's privacy."
MR. SPANOS pointed out that as far as the Tax Division is
concerned, it would have less ability to do its job, and as far
as Child Support Services Division (CSSD) is concerned, it would
not be able to do its job. Private individuals would lose a
significant amount of revenue from CSSD, and he opined that the
CSSD budget is supported 66 percent by federal dollars, which
would be a large hit to CSSD. The Tax Division already has
confidential state tax information, but it does not have the
confidential federal tax information, and the addition to having
federal tax information does not make it more of a risk, he
opined.
2:14:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the document titled, "SSR
Number 04:5.1.1-Background Investigations," and commented that
she thought Mr. Spanos had said that only contractors performing
the audits would have access to the information.
MR. SPANOS related his belief that Representative Reinbold's
question was, what contractors have access to the federal tax
information. Currently, only IT contractors have access to that
information and, he explained, he had previously expanded his
response that if the Tax Division ever hired other contractors
to help with audits, that they would also have access to that
information.
2:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the above-mentioned
document, under Information Security Management Policy and under
1. Statement of Need, which read as follows:
Certain Department of Revenue (DOR) employees,
interagency transfers, contractors, and sub-
contractors have potential access to or work closely
with federal taxpayer information (FTI)...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that the language "goes on and
on and it just seems like there's a whole lot more than just IT,
and a whole lot more than potentially just an auditor maybe in
the future," and she sees a conflict here.
MR. SPANOS responded that the policy was drafted in an attempt
to cover all of the bases for anyone who might need to be on the
division's floor as a contractor, but the division certainly
limits access to the federal tax information. He described that
this is an in-place background check policy regardless if they
have access to the federal tax information. For example, the
division does have contractors on its floor, without access to
federal tax information, who assist the property tax auditors in
their assessments. These are non-state employees performing
assessments and because they are on the division's floor, a
background check is performed, he explained.
2:16:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the terminated employee was
turned over to the police department for looking up unauthorized
information.
MR. SPANOS deferred to Carol Beecher, Child Support Services
Division (CSSD) to answer that question because employees were
terminated from that division.
2:17:49 PM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Division of Child Support Services,
Department of Revenue (DOR), answered that previously, the
division did uncover that employees had been accessing
information in the system, and the division's system includes
federal tax information as well as other information. The
division realized that a mixture of different information had
been accessed, and because it operates within a case management
system, on a child support case a lot of the information is
contained on the pages in its electronic system. The division
went through a whole disciplinary process and the employees were
dismissed, she offered.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the question was whether that was
reported to the police department, troopers, or prosecutors.
MS. BEECHER answered that it was not reported.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why it was not reported because this
appears to be a fairly serious issue.
MS. BEECHER related that when the division goes through such a
process and it gets to that level, the process is through the
department's human resources services division and the union.
She related that she would have to get back to the committee as
to reporting it to law enforcement.
2:19:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that Ms. Beecher get back to her
with a response.
MS. BEECHER said she would get back to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the comment that if the Child
Support Services Division (CSSD) did not have access, it would
not be able to obtain the money. Except, she commented, a
private attorney would not have access and would have to work
through the discovery process, and she understood the testimony
to be that CSSD would not be able to prosecute its cases.
2:20:46 PM
MS. BEECHER answered that the Child Support Services Division
(CSSD) does not have access to look into IRS records, it
receives IRS data from its federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement for the purposes of federal tax intercept for child
support obligations and arrearages. In the event the division
wanted a tax return, it would receive it from the client or as
part of the Federal Intercept Program, the division is allowed
to intercept a tax return. She advised that as part of "our
state plan," and as part of the Social Security Act, Part 4D,
CSSD is mandated to be part of the Federal Tax Intercept
Program. In order to be compliant, clearly the CSSD must be
able to obtain the IRS data, and those intercept funds are
considered to be IRS data. She explained that the division is
not even allowed, on its statements, to indicate that they are
IRS Intercept Program funds, they are called "other funds."
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to her testimony regarding receiving
federal tax returns and explained that the division's interest
is in the federal tax refunds from the person not complying with
their child support obligations. The Federal Intercept Program
allows the division to seize that tax refund for the benefit of
the person who is supposed to receive child support and it does
not go to the taxpayer who is not paying their child support
obligations, he surmised.
MS. BEECHER answered that Chair Claman is correct.
2:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a private litigant would go
about intercepting tax refund money.
MS. BEECHER opined that she does not believe it would be
possible, for the division's purposes, without having a child
support case with arrearages due.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that in other words, "you would go
through the courts."
MS. BEECHER explained that CSSD is an administrative agency, and
it is not required to go through the court to intercept a tax
refund.
2:23:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that generally, if there are child support
arrearages, a court order is not necessarily needed. A person
could hire a private lawyer and with the child support duty
obligation would go to child support enforcement and advise that
Mr. Smith owed his client $20,000, and child support enforcement
would investigate the claim and then proceed. In the event it
was a civil judgement unrelated to child support, a person would
not have that same access to the federal tax returns because
there is a federal statute that allows access to those funds for
child support, but not necessarily for other means, he offered.
MS. BEECHER answered that Chair Claman was correct. She
explained that there must be a child support order for the Child
Support Services Division (CSSD) to intercept those funds. She
said she was unsure whether Representative LeDoux was talking
about a private attorney working with a client and explained
that even if the attorney wanted that information, there must be
a child support order, be it court created or administratively
created.
2:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the $2 million received by
the state was all child support money.
MR. SPANOS responded that he was speaking solely for the Tax
Division, and on average, it collects approximately $2 million
in audits. He explained that the audits are what "we call piggy
back audits" wherein the federal government had performed an
audit, it then notified the division that the audit had been
completed and that the income rose by "X" dollars. The division
then follows up with a piggy back audit because the person owes
the state more money as well.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that it had nothing to do with
the Child Support Services Division (CSSD), and the $2 million
was from taxpayers.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Reinbold was correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Reinbold that [within
the committee packets] the 4/6/2017 letter from Governor Walker,
page 2, paragraph 1, references as follows:
In FY16, CSSD collected over $8.6 million in past due
child support through the federal tax refund offset
program.
2:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the state has a database
or do the 300 employees simply have access to a federal
database, and whether it is linked to the (indisc.) database.
She explained that she was interested in data security.
MR. SPANOS replied that the database is made by a company called
Fast Enterprises, it is a GenTax system that is "customized off
the shelf" and the division refers to it as "the tax revenue
management system or TRMS." It is within that system that all
of the state and federal tax information for the Tax Division is
stored, he explained.
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Reinbold that the committee
will not keep going down the path of data breaches as there has
been no indication of data breach issues from this department.
2:28:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that the testimony sounds like one
employee had been terminated "due to a child payment type
situation" that was not reported to the police. She asked
whether anyone had ever received a misdemeanor
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the question is whether anyone, other
than the dismissed employee, had ever been charged with crimes
related to improper data access.
MR. SPANOS responded that he would have to get back to her, but
during his time as deputy director, the division has terminated
at least one employee for releasing confidential information.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that there are 300 employees
with access, and the policy was put in place on February 2016.
It appears that the temptation could be there to access the data
and distribute it whether or not they are caught. She asked
whether there was any history of more than one person being
terminated, and whether there was a class A misdemeanor.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that Representatives Reinbold and
Eastman have multiple questions on this same topic and they have
been adequately asked and answered.
2:30:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that at the point a person reaches
that ten-year period, and in looking back the background check
at the national database level will list any convictions, and
the division will be alerted to those convictions.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that this question has been asked and
answered so many times he could not even count them, and this
question would not be asked again.
2:30:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to "that ten years look back
going forwards," and asked whether it would be common sense to
also do a look back backwards for some period of time. He
opined that the committee has not recommended that option, but
he would be interested to know why the committee would not want
to have, at least, a five year look back. Currently, he said,
the federal government asked Alaska to perform this background
check and if someone lied on their job application last week,
"we really don't want to know about that" because they are
already employed and "we can't do anything about it."
MR. SPANOS related that that issue is something the division can
look at and consider. He reiterated that the department's
Criminal Investigation Unit runs this background check and if a
crime showed up for an employee hired last week, the Criminal
Investigation Unit would notify the division and it would review
the person's application to verify that the information was
listed. The division does try to use common sense, but in
drafting a policy on whether it will retain or not retain an
employee, it really does have to get down to the specifics. He
said, "This was shared" with the unions, they had an opportunity
to comment, and it was finalized. The division has certainly
prepared policies relating to protecting information, except it
has never created a policy based on performing a background
check. In that the policy is new, the division did not want to
get cross-ways with the unions or tenured employees in going
back 15-20 years ago as to whether they did not disclose an
unrelated crime. Certainly, he commented, the division is
trying to use common sense in this as well.
2:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked when will the [DOR] committee look
at that issue and get an answer back to this committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that this legislation is not about that
policy, this is about fingerprinting. The House Judiciary
Standing Committee is not revisiting the division's policy so he
does not see how his questions have anything to do with this
bill. Chair Claman asked Representative Eastman to explain how
that has anything to do with the bill in front of this
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the state pays to perform
these background checks and he would like to know that common
sense is being applied.
CHAIR CLAMAN stressed that "You've done the best you can," but
the state is spending the money on the background checks already
and this bill allows that fingerprinting is included in the
background checks.
2:34:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 219. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony
on HB 219.
2:34:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked when amendments would be due
because the committee had not had a chance to amend the bill.
2:34:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested confirmation that the proposed
legislation does not allow any additional people access to this
information; it simply states that the state needs to
fingerprint current and new employees.
MR. SPANOS answered that Representative Stutes was correct, the
bill only asks for authority to perform fingerprinting.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested verification that the bill has
nothing to do with additional access, where the division stores
its database, or anything else along those lines.
MR. SPANOS advised that Representative Stutes was correct.
2:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that it is the custom and
practice of this committee to wait until the committee had heard
public testimony before submitting amendments to Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that the committee did not hear any public
testimony, and what are his comments on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that it has been the
committee's practice to hear public testimony, whether it is
long, short, or non-existent, before contacting Legislative
Legal and Research Services to discuss amendments. He requested
24 hours concerning an amendment he would like to propose.
2:36:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to explain the
amendment he would like to propose.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would like to discuss with
Legislative Legal and Research Services whether the laws need an
amendment, he thinks they might and he would like to have that
conversation before bringing something to the committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that this bill has been on the
committee's agenda since last Friday, and he asked what
prevented Representative Eastman from having that conversation
in the last several days.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that no deadline had been
assigned for amendments because the bill had not been discussed
in committee.
2:36:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there were any other comments on the
bill other than the desire to take up amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the bill was filed in 2017, and Mr.
Spanos testified that this was the first hearing on the bill.
MR. SPANOS said that Representative Reinbold was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that it is the first hearing and
"we've got a whole lot of stuff going on. He couldn't answer a
ton of questions that we had." She described that public
testimony was about 15 seconds ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that he understands she has a
perspective about the public testimony, but in fact, this
hearing had been noticed for some time and not one single member
of the public chose to testify (audio difficulties) for not
coming and testifying. It is his belief, he commented, that the
public not testifying indicates that they are comfortable with
this bill because it had been noticed.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that she had said that 15
seconds was a ridiculous amount for public testimony. She
opined that the public would want to weigh in on this bill and
they want legislators to offer amendments ...
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Reinbold to direct her
comments to the bill and not comments trying to attack the
chair.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she has deep concerns with this
bill, it is the committee's first hearing, and the bill has not
been well vetted. She offered concern regarding the 400,000
taxpayers and approximately [17,000] corporations that pay
income tax wherein the 300 employees could potentially have
access to confidential information. She said that she does not
understand why the committee is "cramming this through right
now," and she will be a no-vote in moving this legislation out
of committee.
2:39:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold's request, said that the deadline for amendments is
5:00 on Thursday. He related that an amendment will be prepared
to change the effective date of HB 219 from July 1, 2017 to July
1, 2018.
[HB 219 was held over.]
2:39:56 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB219 ver A 3.7.18.PDF |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Transmittal Letter 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Supporting Document-IRS Publication 1075 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Fiscal Note DHSS-ASS 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Fiscal Note DOLWD-UI 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Fiscal Note DOR-CSSD 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Additional Document-DOR Information Security Management Policy 3.7.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 219 |