Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
04/15/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| SB98 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2011
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 89
"An Act clarifying that a legislator or legislative employee is
allowed to accept certain charity events; amending disclosure
deadlines under the Legislative Ethics Act; relating
compassionate gifts; allowing legislators and legislative
employees to use legislative to requests to refrain from
disclosure under the Legislative Ethics Act; and establishing
mailing lists for campaign purposes and nonlegislative purposes;
allowing legislators a seat for an alternate public member on
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and and legislative
employees who are representing persons in an administrative
hearing to clarifying the requirements related to participation
by alternate members in the contact hearing officers and attempt
to influence the outcome of the hearing if they are proceedings
of the committee."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to biometric information."
- MOVED CSSB 98(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to manufactured homes, including manufactured
homes permanently affixed to land, to the conversion of
manufactured homes to real property, to the severance of
manufactured homes from real property, to the titling,
conveyance, and encumbrance of manufactured homes, and to
manufacturers' certificates of origin for vehicles; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL
02/16/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/11 (S) STA, JUD
03/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/11 (S) Moved CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
03/31/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/11 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/01/11 (S) DP: MEYER
04/01/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, KOOKESH, PASKVAN,
GIESSEL
04/11/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/13/11 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/15/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 98
SHORT TITLE: BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
03/11/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/11 (S) STA, JUD
03/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/11 (S) Moved CSSB 98(STA) Out of Committee
03/17/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/11 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
03/18/11 (S) DP: WIELECHOWSKI, GIESSEL, MEYER,
PASKVAN
03/21/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/06/11 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 104
SHORT TITLE: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS REAL PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
03/16/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/11 (S) STA, JUD
03/29/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/11 (S) Moved SB 104 Out of Committee
03/31/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/11 (S) STA RPT 2DP 3NR
04/01/11 (S) DP: KOOKESH, MEYER
04/01/11 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, PASKVAN, GIESSEL
04/06/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/06/11 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Chief of Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a sectional analysis of SB 89.
MICHAEL CAUFIELD, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Described the changes in version T of SB 98.
ANDY MODEROW, Staff
Senator Hollis French
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Described the changes in version D of SB
104.
PAT GREEN, State Government Relations Director
Wells Fargo Bank
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 104.
JEFF HARRIS, Loan Administration Manager
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 104.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Paskvan, Coghill, Wielechowski, and French.
SB 89-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
1:31:54 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 89. [CSSB
89(STA), 27-LS0452\T was before the committee.]
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Sponsor of SB 89, stated that this ethics
bill is a work in progress that wound up in his hands. His chief
of staff, Ms. Moss, would provide a sectional analysis after
which he would offer an amendment. He noted that the current
version T removed some of the more contentious issues.
1:33:22 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Chief of Staff to Senator Coghill, sponsor of SB
89, said the only changes in Section 1 appear on page 2. For
consistency with AS 24.60.080, the phrase "lawful gratuity" was
changed to "gift" and reference to the compassionate gift
statute, AS 24.60.075, was inserted.
Section 2 attempts to draw a bright line for legislators and
staff in dealing with constituents. It says that unless the
legislator is an attorney, the legislative office will stop
giving assistance to a constituent once the issue goes before an
administrative hearing officer. Inadvertent ex parte contact is
allowed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked, if he were to write a letter on behalf of a
constituent asking for a fair hearing on a permanent fund
dividend denial, if the letter would go to an administrative
hearing officer on the first level or to the department.
MS. MOSS replied the first level is called an informal denial
and at that stage he could communicate with the department. Once
there's a formal denial and a request for an administrative
hearing, the legislator's office would need to step away.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an example of the point at which it is no
longer acceptable for a legislator to act in regard to child
placement actions under the Office of Children's Services (OCS).
MS. MOSS replied OCS has worked with legislative offices all
during the process even though it's actually a court case. They
also have a legislative liaison that legislative offices can
contact directly. An example where contact would be limited
beyond a certain point would be workers compensation. Once the
issue reaches the point of having administrative hearings, the
legislative office would have to back away. With regard to child
support, once the matter reaches the point of requesting an
administrative hearing, the legislative office can no longer be
involved.
1:36:43 PM
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the ethics laws were written
before there were administrative law judges so this was an
attempt to clarify the point at which a legislative office must
step away from a constituent issue they'd been working on. He
noted that at one point the Ethics Committee suggested a 10-hour
limit, but he believes this is a better way. It's okay for a
legislative office to help a constituent up to the point of the
administrative decision, but it's not okay to put pressure on
the decision-maker.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if legislators could safely send complaints
to a legislative liaison office about the way their constituents
were being treated.
MS. MOSS replied she didn't know the answer, but she didn't
believe there was a protection under the law. She added that the
biggest problem is when a constituent doesn't inform the
legislator or staff where they are in the process.
1:38:56 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the ten-hour provision was an ethics
opinion or in statute at one time.
SENATOR COGHILL replied it was an ethics opinion.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this would supersede that opinion.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to the workers' compensation
example and said he reads the bill to say that a legislator
could call a department director to ask about the status of a
particular case.
MS. MOSS agreed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for confirmation that the legislator
couldn't contact the chief of adjudications.
MS. MOSS replied they could contact the person that is handling
the workers' compensation case, but not the hearing officer, the
attorney for the insurance company or the attorney for the
constituent.
SENATOR COGHILL added that the idea was to keep legislators from
becoming free legal advisors unless the legislator is a
practicing attorney.
1:40:26 PM
MS. MOSS clarified that a non-attorney can handle a workers'
compensation case, but once the matter gets to an administrative
hearing it's between the constituent, their attorney, and the
division under challenge.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked where it says the legislator couldn't
contact the attorney who represents the injured worker.
MS. MOSS replied it doesn't say that specifically, but once the
dispute goes to a hearing officer the legislative office isn't
supposed to contact those parties. Contacting a constituent's
attorney would be considered ex parte contact.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked where it says that in the bill.
MS. MOSS replied "ex parte" is contacting a party in a case
without going through the court.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his understanding is different.
CHAIR FRENCH said he believes that "ex parte" is between a party
and the judge without the other party being present.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed.
SENATOR PASKVAN agreed, and said the purpose of that definition
of "ex parte" is to encourage contact between the parties
directly, but while they're trying to work things out neither
party can contact the judge without the other being present.
MS. MOSS added that the bill also requires legislators to
disclose any contact that is considered inappropriate.
1:42:51 PM
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that in this case "ex parte" would be
between a legislator and a hearing officer, not a legislator and
an attorney representing the constituent.
MS. MOSS responded that when she always asks constituents that
contact Senator Coghill's office for help if they engaged an
attorney.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he didn't believe that under current
law or if this were to pass that it would be illegal or
unethical for a legislator to contact a constituent's attorney
to express concern about the timeliness of a hearing.
MS. MOSS said she appreciates having that on the record.
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that the administrative law judge who
spoke to his office about two years ago had the same opinion.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Joyce Anderson was online to answer
questions about ethics laws.
1:45:36 PM
MS. MOSS said Section 3 releases the Ethics Committee from
having to compile disclosure form statements, but it would still
have to maintain a record of the forms that are available to the
public.
Section 4 adds "or public member of the committee" to AS
24.60.060(a), which is the statute that prohibits disclosure of
confidential information.
Sections 5 and 7 have been reworded to make it clear that
legislators, their employees, or a public member of the
committee may not accept from a lobbyist a ticket to a
charitable event that is valued at more than $249.99.
SENATOR COGHILL added that it also allows accepting a charitable
gift beyond that amount from somebody other than a lobbyist, but
it must be reported and the event must be a sanctioned event.
MS. MOSS said Section 7 changes the reporting requirements from
30 days to 60 days for charitable gifts and gifts of travel for
purposes of gaining legislative information.
1:47:22 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if this changes what a lobbyist may offer
to a legislator.
SENATOR COGHILL answered no. It changes charitable events that
are specifically mentioned in statute. The rewording attempts to
allow a charitable gift donation from people who are not
lobbyists.
1:48:44 PM
CHAIR FRENCH observed that it was a little confusing to talk
about tickets to a charitable event in conjunction with gifts,
and asked if this was separate from the general gift
prohibition.
MS. MOSS responded it addresses circumstances like receiving a
ticket to a sanctioned charitable event and winning the door
prize.
SENATOR COGHILL added that a question came up about winning a
cruise at the "Thanksgiving in March" event. In another instance
a legislator was given a gift from a non-lobbyist to sit at a
head table, which was valued at more than $400. An ethics
complaint was lodged but there was not an ethical problem. He
noted that it might be a problem if it wasn't a sanctioned
event.
MS. MOSS explained that Section 8 allows certain persons to
request a waiver from disclosing clients or making any
disclosures that would violate state or federal law or the state
or federal constitution. The State Affairs Committee added the
language "or a rule adopted formally by a trade or profession,
that state or federal law requires the person to follow." Thus,
certain occupations don't have to disclose their sources of
income from clients.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it is an ethics disclosure, an Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) disclosure, or both.
MS. MOSS replied it's an ethics disclosure.
SENATOR COGHILL added that under HIPPA there are some
restrictions on confidentiality, and there was some concern
about reporting if a legislative office was working on a
healthcare issue for a constituent.
MS. MOSS said Sections 9 and 13 were added in the State Affairs
Committee, and state that if someone is a volunteer or
educational trainee for 30 days they would be expected to take
an ethics class.
Sections 10 and 11 make reference to the new statute in Section
12.
Section 12 is a new section of law that deals with alternate
members. It adds an alternate for a public member and allows
them to participate in the full proceeding once they've been
selected.
SENATOR COGHILL said it became apparent that it would be easier
to make a quorum for the public members if there was an
alternate. A decision was made that once the alternate was
engaged in a particular ethical question they should remain
until the conclusion. That is true for the public and
legislative alternates.
1:53:42 PM
MS. MOSS said Section 14 changes the definition of "legislative
employee." It clarifies that hourly employees are not included
and are not required to take ethics training.
1:54:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL observed that the bill was a benign housekeeping
matter without his amendment, which addresses how to reasonably
and properly allow legislators to participate in partisan
political activities while on state travel. Generally speaking,
most of the meetings that legislators hold outside of Juneau are
held in Anchorage or Fairbanks. Legislators from those urban
areas may attend partisan events after conducting state
business, but those from out of town cannot. He said he was
trying to find a reasonable solution without allowing
legislators to use state money to campaign. That's the one-way
valve. "We want them to do one thing nobly, and we don't want
them to use it improperly."
1:56:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, labeled 27-LS0452\T.1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: CSSB 89(STA)
Page 1, line 7, following "instances;":
Insert "allowing legislators and legislative
employees, in certain circumstances, to participate in
partisan political activity while on state travel;"
Page 5, following line 26:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 24.60.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) Notwithstanding the limitations under
(a)(2), (a)(4), and (c) of this section and
subject to other state or federal laws, a
legislator or legislative employee who is on
state travel may participate in partisan
political activity, including campaign activity,
if
(1) the participation is incidental to
the purpose of the travel;
(2) the legislator or the legislative
employee does not use or authorize the use of
state resources to pay for the activity; and
(3) the legislator or legislative
employee does not participate in the activity
(A) during a normal workday
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., excluding
meal breaks;
(B) on a state or municipal
election day;
(C) during the 30 days
immediately preceding an election in which
the participating legislator or the
legislator for whom the participating
employee works is a candidate for elective
office; or
(D) by fund raising for a
political party or campaign.
* Sec. 4. AS 24.60.031 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Notwithstanding the limitations under
(a) and (b) of this section and subject to other
state or federal laws, a legislator or
legislative employee who is on state travel may
participate in partisan political activity,
including campaign activity, if
(1) the participation is incidental to
the purpose of the travel;
(2) the legislator or the legislative
employee does not use or authorize the use of
state resources to pay for the activity; and
(3) the legislator or legislative
employee does not participate in the activity
(A) during a normal workday
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., excluding
meal breaks;
(B) on a state or municipal
election day;
(C) during the 30 days
immediately preceding an election in which
the participating legislator or the
legislator for whom the participating
employee works is a candidate for elective
office; or
(D) by fund raising for a
political party or campaign."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 24.60.990(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(17) "state travel" means travel with
transportation or overnight lodging that is
provided or paid for with state resources."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR FRENCH objected and opened discussion on the amendment.
SENATOR COGHILL said he would understand if the Chair decided to
set the bill aside for more in depth consideration next session.
He explained that the amendment addresses AS 24.60.030, which
talks about ethical management, and AS 24.60.031, which talks
about the management of fundraising. He read the amendment into
the record and the following legal definition of "incidental:"
"Subordinate to something of greater importance; having a minor
role." He was trying to say that there are reasons to prohibit
the activity, but there should be an accommodation for
participation in partisan political activity that is clearly
incidental. Whereas fund raising for any political party or
campaign while on the state dime is absolutely prohibited. This
sets the bar and clarifies that the activity has to be very
small in comparison to the activity for which the legislator is
using state travel.
SENATOR COGHILL said if he goes to Anchorage on state travel and
is called by a radio program and gives his opinion, he could be
charged with participating in partisan activity when he's really
just articulating his beliefs. The question needs to be answered
and the forgoing are the criteria he set.
2:03:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he appreciates the thought that went into the
amendment and shares some of the concerns. Leveling a complaint
that a legislator has violated the ethics rules is a powerful
complaint. It will be discussed further over the summer and next
year. Some of the questions that arise relate to the size
differences in the legislative districts and the sort of things
a legislator should be able to do when he/she is paid to travel
inside his/her own district. Some things could conceivably be an
ethics violation under the current rules and he's not sure they
should be. Is it a violation if you're traveling to Anchorage on
state business and you update your Facebook page relating to
your campaign when you're in your hotel room at night? Could you
call into a Fairbanks radio show from Anchorage promoting your
campaign while on state travel? He reiterated that he'd spend
time on the question between now and next year.
2:05:54 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated agreement. If a legislator is
traveling to Anchorage and gets a call from a radio station
asking about partisan activities, does it matter if that
legislator is in Anchorage or Fairbanks? The problem has been
how to define where that line is. The State Affairs Committee
couldn't figure it out, but with further dialog there may be a
solution.
SENATOR COGHILL said he assumes that some legislators and some
people that watch legislators will be bad actors, but others are
genuinely concerned about ethical behavior. It's a balance and
he's trying to figure out the clearest rule possible. Trying to
define motives is not the answer, but defining action items
helps establish bright lines so that legislators know what is
expected of them as partisan people. It also helps those who
genuinely want to keep legislators ethically accountable for the
use of state resources.
He said his district includes the Richardson Highway, the Glenn
Highway, the Denali Highway, and the coast from Valdez to
Whittier so he can be anywhere in those communities and be
totally forbidden from going to a Republican event even though
he had traveled 800 miles to visit three other communities in
the district. It's painful to be unable to participate.
Under the current statutes, there is an exact prohibition on
partisan activity anytime a legislator is on the state dime.
This leaves legislators vulnerable to people who have bad
intentions. The Ethics Committee has discussed this extensively
over the years and legislators have repeatedly asked for relief.
He asked the committee to carefully consider the amendment; it's
his best effort to define what is and is not ethical.
SENATOR COGHILL asked the Chair how he wanted to proceed with
the amendment and the bill itself.
2:11:19 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN commented that he looks forward to further
healthy debate on the matter and believes that this committee is
best suited for this substantive discussion. It's a complex
subject that requires careful consideration from both sides.
Legislators should always act ethically, but he doesn't want to
give unfair advantage to someone who can use private wealth to
scam the system, knowing that the person they're attacking can't
fight back because they were traveling at state expense.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's passionate that this is not about
fairness; it's about what is ethical. Right now you can't be a
partisan politician while on the state dime. That's not
reasonable and doesn't address the ethical question.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that he'd leave matters as they are; both
the bill and the amendment are in front of the committee and he
was maintaining his objection.
2:14:10 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said his office was prepared to work with the
committee and was open to suggestions.
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 89 in committee.
SB 98-BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
2:14:40 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 98 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 98, labeled 27-
LS0661\T, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked his staff to describe the changes.
2:15:35 PM
MICHAEL CAUFIELD, Staff to Senator Wielechowski, sponsor of SB
98, described the following changes:
Page 2, lines 17-19, contains new language that clarifies that
occupational exams are also educational exams, and that the exam
administrator may determine what constitutes an acceptable
alternative ID. He noted that some questions may still arise
with this section.
Page 3, line 18, the phrase "agents of the state," was removed
to ensure that the state is exempt from liability, but not an
organization that contracts with the state.
Page 3, lines 29-30, creates an exemption for voice data
collected for quality assurance purposes, and the exemption for
"facial images in a biometric system" was removed.
Page 3, lines 1-2, "facial images" was changed to "facial
mapping" in the redefinition of "biometric data" on page 4,
lines 1-2.
Page 4, lines 25-26, "facial mapping" was defined as "the use of
digital technology to measure the features of an individual's
face." This was done to ensure that pictures cannot be defined
as biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD said he understands there might be additional
issues with the alternate identification.
2:18:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referenced the alternate identification provision
on page 2, lines 12-19, and asked what would happen if someone
administering the LSAT would settle for nothing other than a
fingerprint for identification.
MR. CAUFIELD replied the current draft requires the
administrator to accept another acceptable form of
identification. He acknowledged that it could present a problem
if the administrator said no other form of identification was
acceptable. Proposed amendment 27-LS0661\T.1 addresses the
issue.
2:20:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that version T says the company
that administers the exam cannot require someone to provide
biometric information for identification if they provide
alternate identification that is acceptable to the person
administering the occupational exam. The intent of the provision
is that something like a library card would not be acceptable,
but a passport or driver's license clearly would be acceptable
alternate identification.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what would happen if the LSAT administrator
would only accept a fingerprint as acceptable identification. A
passport was not acceptable.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that would be a violation of the
law.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he worries that a national licensing entity
will say it won't allow the exam to be administered in Alaska.
It would be unfortunate to make it so restrictive that national
testers see that the only alternative is to leave the state. He
noted that the amendment he drafted tries to accommodate that.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the amendment pertains to this section.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if it would be too broad to reword the
provision to say "generally accepted identification."
CHAIR FRENCH suggested he hold the thought until the amendment
was considered.
2:26:51 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to bring Amendment 1, 27-LS0661\T.1,
before the committee for discussion purposes.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR PASKVAN
TO: CSSB 98( ), Draft Version "T"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "If"
Insert "(a) Except as provided in (b) of this
section, if"
Page 2, line 17, following "examination.":
Insert new material to read:
"(b) If the collection of the biometric
information of an individual taking an
occupational examination is legitimately
necessary to establish the security of the
occupational examination, the person who
administers the occupational examination may
collect the biometric information, but the
person shall comply with the collection and
other requirements of this chapter with
regard to the biometric information, and the
person shall require the person's
contractor, if any, to agree to comply with
the collection and other requirements of
this chapter with regard to the biometric
information.
(c)"
SENATOR PASKVAN said the purpose of the amendment is to address
the problems that administrators of the CPA exam have had with
individuals on the East coast transferring test questions to
individuals on the West coast hours before the test is
administered. The amendment says that if collection of biometric
information is deemed legitimately necessary to secure an
occupational examination, the exam administrator may collect the
biometric information in compliance with the other requirements
of the bill. This is a compromise and a better solution than a
blanket prohibition, he said.
2:30:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he appreciates the intent, but he
objects to the amendment. There are other ways to ensure that
the person taking the test is the singular person credited with
taking the test. Proctors are hired to watch individuals who are
taking an examination, including following them to the bathroom.
As written this is a good bill that provides a lot of
protections for Alaskans, he stated.
2:32:01 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he can understand both sides of the
question, but is seems as though the test taker is being asked
to surrender a lot in order to secure the integrity of the test.
He wondered if the test administrators shouldn't be more
responsible for ensuring that integrity, and observed that the
amendment appeared to double the reasons for the test
administrators to collect that information.
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS0661\T.1.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected.
2:34:27 PM
A roll call was taken. Amendment 1, 27-LS0661\T.1, failed 2:2
with Senator Paskvan and Senator French voting yea and Senator
Coghill and Senator Wielechowski voting nay.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to page 3, lines 11-16, Sec. 18.14.080,
right of action, and asked if the idea is to penalize people who
lose biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD replied it addresses people who lose or distribute
biometric information.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a discussion about the policy rationale
for subsection (b), which immunizes the state against a claim
for damages for lost biometric information.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI told the committee that the state was
initially concerned that if the information was distributed the
state could potentially be liable for millions of dollars in
damages. He said he isn't a fan of immunizing the state so it
was a tough call, but if that provision hadn't been included
it's likely a fiscal note would have been attached making the
bill more difficult to pass. It would still be illegal for the
state to disclose the information, but an individual couldn't
sue for damages if that did happen. He reiterated that, as a
whole, it's a good bill that moves Alaska forward on protecting
peoples' private information.
2:37:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH observed that in a number of places the record
clearly reflects the sponsor's reluctance to offer the state
immunity provisions. He expressed similar concern, and suggested
that this is one step forward and perhaps there will be
opportunity to revisit that provision in the future.
SENATOR PASKVAN expressed concerned that the state is being
provided absolute immunity regardless of how egregious its
conduct might or might not be. It's problematic.
2:39:07 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referenced page 2, line 3, Sec. 18.14.020, and
asked if the penalties for disclosing, transferring, or
distributing collected biometric information are contained in
Sec. 18.14.080. It's a civil violation for which there is a
financial penalty.
MR. CAUFIELD answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if a "bad apple" state employee would be
immunized if he were to intentionally sell another person's
biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD replied they would be immunized if they were acting
as an agent of the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that if they were acting within
their duties as a state employee they would be immunized, but if
they were acting outside their state duties they would be
liable.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that they could be on the hook for
$100,000.
2:40:32 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN pointed out that Sec. 18.14.080(b), on page 3,
line 17, gives an employee of the state immunity for damages, a
penalty, or both for violations under this chapter.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded he suspects there are creative
lawyers that could figure out violations outside this chapter
for a state employee who did something like that.
SENATOR PASKVAN said his perception is that the immunity is
broad.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's not the intent to ban some other
common law claim, tort claim, or claim under another statute.
2:41:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that the general concern is probably
aimed at private enterprise collecting the material, not state
collection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested amending the bill to address the
issue that Senator Coghill spoke to about acceptable alternate
identification. On page 2, line 16, following the word
"information" delete the remainder of the sentence and insert
"if the individual provides generally accepted alternate
identification to the person administering the occupational
examination." It's not a substantive change.
At ease from 2:44 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. to write down the suggested
amendment.
2:45:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and announced that the
amendment would be put aside. He asked the will of the
committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CSSB 98( ), version T, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSSB 98(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
At ease from 2:46 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.
SB 104-MANUFACTURED HOMES AS REAL PROPERTY
2:47:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 104 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS),
version D.
2:47:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 104, labeled 27-
LS0467\D, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
ANDY MODEROW, Staff to Senator French, described the changes as
follows:
Sec. 40.17.125(a) was modified so that the recorder's
office won't have to determine whether an affixation
or severance affidavit meets requirements under Sec.
34.85, which relates to how a manufactured home is
affixed to real property. Under AS 40.17.035, the
recorder's office cannot be tasked with determining
whether the contents of a document are legally
sufficient to achieve the purposes of the document;
instead, as clarified under the regulation, the person
submitting documents for recording must ensure that
the prerequisites for recording as established by
regulation and statute are met.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Whitney Brewster with the Division of
Motor Vehicles, Vicky Backus with the State Recorder's Office,
Jeff Harris with Wells Fargo, and Pat Green with Wells Fargo
were available online to answer questions.
MR. MODEROW continued as follows:
Sec. 40.17.125(b) received two minor changes in the
CS. The first modifies the action taken by the
recorder on the recording affidavit, changing "write"
to "place" on page 20, line 30, of the legislation.
This change reflects that the recording office no
longer writes on recorded affidavits - instead, they
affix bar codes that contain relevant information. In
addition, the original draft required an affidavit to
be recorded in land records; in the CS, Sec.
40.17.125(b) changes "in land records" to "the public
record," to match where the recorder files land
records today.
Sec. 40.17.125(c) in the original draft (version I)
was removed in the CS. This language required the
recorder's office to automatically send a certified
copy of the recorded affidavit to a person designated
on an affidavit. This doesn't match current recording
office procedures, which require an individual to
request and pay for certified copies of affidavits.
In regards to this last change, conforming amendments
were made to Sec. 34.85.060(12) and Sec. 34.85.120(7)
in Section 26 of the CS to remove references to the
automatic mailing of a certified affidavit. In
addition, Sec. 28.10.266(7) and Sec. 28.10.266(8) of
the CS, found in Section 16 on page 10 of the
legislation, were modified to ensure that an affidavit
complies with affixation requirements under Sec. 34.85
of the legislation.
Page 6, Section 16, of the original draft required DMV
to notify a primary lienholder of completed conversion
procedures when the conversion involved cancelling a
manufacturer's certificate of origin or title. But
under Sec. 28.10.267, a conversion cannot take place
until a manufactured home is free and clear of all
liens and encumbrances. Because a primary lienholder
would never exist through a conversion procedure, the
lienholder notification provisions were replaced in
the CS with language that allows the applicant to
indicate one person, in addition to the owner, that
receives written acknowledgement of completed
conversions under Sec. 28.10.262-265. This change is
reflected in Sec. 28.10.262(c), 28.10.263(c),
28.10.264(d), 28.10.265(c), 28.10.266(12), of version
D.
2:51:31 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN referenced page 15, lines 14-20, and asked what
the lessor of the real property consents to, and what interest
in the real property the lessor of the park gives up or has
subject to the real estate loss.
MR. MODEROW deferred to the Wells Fargo representative.
2:52:34 PM
PAT GREEN, State Government Relations Director, Wells Fargo
Bank, said this legislation is primarily intended for those
manufactured home owners that also own the land under the home.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Harris if he could tell the committee
what the lessor of the real property is consenting to under Sec.
34.85.040(2).
2:53:17 PM
JEFF HARRIS, Loan Administration Manager, Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Anchorage, AK, explained that an individual that has a
home in a mobile home park would need to move the manufactured
home onto a piece of land they own in order to affix it, get a
fee simple transaction, and get a mortgage on the home. The
homeowner must own the land and home together get a mortgage.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he agrees that a mobile home owner in a
park could get a mortgage if he had a 20-year lease and the park
owner consents.
MR. HARRIS replied there's less risk with a long-term lease, so
that option was put into the legislation.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if deficiency judgments would be
prohibited, assuming that any foreclosure would be non-judicial.
MR. GREEN answered yes. His understanding is that, in the event
of default, all the normal real property foreclosure procedures
would be followed.
MR. HARRIS agreed; the foreclosure proceedings would be the same
as for a "stick-built" home
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 104 in committee.
2:58:05 PM
Chair French thanked the committee for the work it did this year
and adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at
2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|