04/12/2021 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB82 | |
| SB9 | |
| SB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2021
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lora Reinbold, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to alcoholic beverages; relating to the
regulation of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
alcoholic beverages; relating to licenses, endorsements, and
permits involving alcoholic beverages; relating to common
carrier approval to transport or deliver alcoholic beverages;
relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to
offenses involving alcoholic beverages; amending Rule 17(h),
Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 9(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to the Open Meetings Act; and establishing a
civil penalty for violations of the open meeting requirements by
members of governmental bodies."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 82
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/12/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/21 (S) JUD, STA, FIN
03/01/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 9
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG
SPONSOR(s): MICCICHE
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
02/12/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/12/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/12/21 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/03/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/10/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/21 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/21 (S) Moved SB 9 Out of Committee
03/12/21 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/21 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
03/15/21 (S) DP: COSTELLO, GRAY-JACKSON, REVAK
03/15/21 (S) NR: STEVENS
03/24/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/29/21 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/07/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 15
SHORT TITLE: OPEN MEETINGS ACT; PENALTY
SPONSOR(s): COSTELLO
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) CRA, JUD
02/25/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/04/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/09/21 (S) Moved CSSB 15(CRA) Out of Committee
03/09/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/21 (S) CRA RPT CS 1DP 1DNP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/10/21 (S) DP: HUGHES
03/10/21 (S) DNP: GRAY-JACKSON
03/10/21 (S) NR: MYERS, WILSON
03/17/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
CORI MILLS, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor & State Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 82 and provided the sectional
analysis of SB 82 on behalf of the administration.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Information and Project Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 82.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 82.
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff
Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a brief overview of SB 9 on behalf
of the sponsor.
NICK SPIROPOULOS, Borough Attorney
Mat-Su Borough
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of local control for
alcohol licenses during the hearing on SB 9.
JESSICA VIERA, Executive Director
Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns about liquor license
population limits in SB 9.
SARAH OATES, President;
Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant, and Retailers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9 because it
represents a consensus by stakeholders.
JEROME HERTEL, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska State Fair
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9, as amended, to
address the recreational site license for the Alaska State Fair.
CRYSTAL NYGARD, Deputy Administrator
City of Wasilla
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9 and for local
control.
TIFFANY HALL, Executive Director
Recover Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9, with concerns
about Amendments 1 and 3 because they lack population limits for
licenses.
ROBIN MINARD, Chief Communications Officer
Mat-Su Health Foundation
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9 in its original
form.
LEE ELLIS, President
Brewers Guild of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 9 since it
reduces burdens for distilleries and breweries and addresses
public health concerns.
GLENDA LEDFORD, Mayor
City of Wasilla
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 9.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as sponsor of SB 9.
MELODIE WILTERDINK, Staff
Senator Mia Costello
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the sponsor
of SB 15.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:36:04 PM
CHAIR LORA REINBOLD called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Hughes, Shower, Kiehl, and Chair
Reinbold.
SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
1:37:43 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced the consideration of SB 82, SENATE BILL
NO. 82, "An Act relating to elections and election
investigations."
1:38:23 PM
CORI MILLS, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor & State
Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Juneau,
Alaska, began a PowerPoint on SB 82. She said the purpose of SB
82 is to authorize the attorney general to conduct civil
investigations into election law violations and to bring civil
enforcement actions if a violation is found.
1:39:28 PM
MS. MILLS turned to slide 3. She highlighted that under the
current Title 15, Chapter 13, the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) handles campaign finance violations. This bill
relates to initiatives, petitions to gather signatures, voter
residency and candidate filings. Currently, if the Division of
Elections identifies suspicious behaviors related to an absentee
ballot application or someone files a complaint, its only option
is to refer it for criminal investigation and prosecution.
However, the division does not have any investigative authority.
This bill gives the division another tool it can use when it
identifies any suspicious behavior. This bill would provide the
Department of Law with civil investigative powers similar to
consumer protection investigations.
1:40:49 PM
MS. MILLS explained that civil investigations differ from
criminal investigations in many ways. First, the process for
civil cases is not as lengthy as for criminal cases. Next, the
evidentiary standard of proof differs. The state must adhere to
constitutional standards in criminal cases since the state could
potentially take away someone's freedom. The evidentiary
standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable
doubt, whereas civil cases use a preponderance of evidence
standard. This means the state must prove it is more likely than
not the conduct happened or that the action was unlawful.
Finally, the flow of information is different. In civil cases,
it is possible to acquire information to assist the division in
making determinations that the director must make by statute.
However, law enforcement holds this information confidential in
criminal cases, so the division may not hear about it until
after charges are filed. She characterized this as providing
another layer of tools for civil cases.
1:42:29 PM
SENATOR MYERS wondered if this structure allows the department
to move a case from civil to criminal.
MS. MILLS answered yes. SB 82 will not limit criminal
investigations or prosecutions because the department could
conduct concurrent investigations. She stated that the
department needs to be mindful of when evidence can be gathered
for both investigations and when it must be gathered
independently. DOL can determine which avenue is appropriate or
if both are warranted.
1:43:43 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether law enforcement will get additional
training on election laws and procedures and conversely if the
Division of Elections will get additional training on law
enforcement procedures.
MS. MILLS explained that these cases will be investigated by an
investigative unit within the Department of Law. These cases
will be handled similarly to how the department conducts
consumer protection cases unless the Alaska State Troopers refer
the cases for criminal prosecution. DOL's consumer protection
investigators are trained on civil investigative techniques. She
did not recall if it was by regulation or policies and
procedures. It makes sense to create this civil layer for
election violations since AST may not prioritize election
violations as high as some criminal cases.
1:46:17 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if she could report back on whether this
will be codified or set by policy. He highlighted his concern
that policies often change with each administration.
MS. MILLS agreed to do so.
1:47:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what efforts the Division of Election would
make to train the Division of Election staff on pre-
investigative techniques.
MS. MILLS answered that determinations on complaints or
allegations would be made by the division, in consultation with
DOL, as to whether the allegation is true, whether the complaint
is considered a legal violation, a frivolous complaint, or in
compliance with the law. The Division of Elections would not
conduct a pre-investigation since the bill does not give the
division any investigative authority. She commented that this
was intentional and she would be happy to elaborate.
1:48:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said it would be helpful to know why the
complaints must be filed with the Division of Elections if that
agency will not decide if the complaints are valid.
1:48:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern about whether the Division of
Election staff will have adequate training so staff will know
what to look for and how to respond to the allegations.
MS. MILLS offered to try to address some of the points.
1:49:20 PM
MS. MILLS said many models exist for housing election
investigations. Election investigations could be housed in the
Secretary of State's office, which is the lieutenant governor's
office; the Board of Elections for states without a division; or
in the attorney general's office. The administration decided to
house the election investigations in the attorney general's
office because DOL uses a similar process for consumer
protection complaints. Since DOL has a criminal division, it can
collaborate with the civil division due to confidentiality in
the department. It is more cost-effective to use the existing
structure rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure
within the Division of Elections.
1:51:08 PM
MS. MILLS reviewed slide 6, which listed two examples where
civil investigations and enforcement actions could have been
beneficial. The first example related to suspicious absentee
ballot applications in the 2018 House District 15 case led to
filed criminal charges. Initially, the Division of Elections
received suspicious absentee ballots with anomalies, including
signatures that looked the same, or a substantial number of
people appeared to live in one motor home. The Division of
Elections began working with the criminal division and law
enforcement, which was appropriate. However, the Division of
Elections lacked the authority to determine whether these voters
were valid voters and who signed the applications. Suppose DOL's
civil division had an investigator with authority to conduct
election investigations. In that case, the Division of Elections
could have referred the names on the suspicious ballots to the
civil division's investigator. If so, the division may have
resolved the case much more quickly. It may have been possible
to go to court to force compliance for any violations.
1:52:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for clarification on when cases are
considered civil or criminal because she tends to think of civil
cases as between two parties. If SB 82 were law, she asked
whether it would it be necessary for a party to file a complaint
to initiate action or if the case could be triggered by election
staff observing suspicious behavior and reporting it.
MS. MILLS answered the latter. If the Division of Election's
staff identified suspicious activity, the division could refer
the issue to the DOL's civil division. The investigation would
be held confidential until the civil division acquired enough
evidence to go to court and file an action.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the Division of Elections would file the
civil complaint.
MS. MILLS acknowledged that was correct. Just as in consumer
protection cases, DOL would investigate the case. Sometimes DOL
will alert parties about a violation and achieve voluntary
compliance. Otherwise, the attorney general would file a case on
behalf of the Division of Elections but the division of
elections would be involved.
SENATOR HUGHES asked for a list of activities covered under
APOC's jurisdiction and to identify any gaps that would fall
under DOL's civil division.
1:55:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER referred to the scenario on slide 6. He expressed
concern that in seeking voluntary compliance, the civil division
would need to alert the violator. He expressed concern that the
violator will not be prosecuted for the crime once the violator
is alerted that the case will be pursued as a civil case. He
asked how confidentiality is maintained.
MS. MILLS responded that this illustrates another reason to
house election investigations in the attorney general's office.
She said DOL handles civil and criminal Medicaid fraud. She
acknowledged that it is important to be careful when proceeding
with the investigations to avoid alerting the bad actor in cases
that should be criminally enforced. There may be some aspects
that need to be referred as criminal cases.
SENATOR SHOWER asked who would make the referrals.
MS. MILLS answered that the attorney general would make the
referrals.
1:57:58 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if there are penalties if someone informs
the violator.
MS. MILLS answered that the state has laws it can enforce if
someone tips off a violator, such as obstructing an
investigation, which would apply to civil and criminal cases.
She offered to research the specific statutes that would apply
and report back to the committee.
1:58:56 PM
MS. MILLS referred to the second example on slide 6, the
signature gathering for the oil and gas initiative 190GTX. A
lawsuit was filed after the lieutenant governor certified the
oil and gas signatures. The lawsuit alleged that petition
gatherers were receiving more than one dollar per signature,
which is prohibited by statute. She said she would set aside the
interpretation question on whether signature gatherers were
being paid too much. The complainant came forth just prior to
the lieutenant governor's decision to certify the petition. At
the time, if DOL had had the civil investigative tools in place,
the department could have referred the complaint to the civil
division. The department could have resolved the case more
quickly, she said. The department could have reviewed the
contracts to determine if they violated the law. The lawsuit
process required filing discovery to acquire that information.
2:00:36 PM
MS. MILLS discussed the complaint referral process on slide 7.
The attorney general would also have independent authority to
conduct investigations. Under SB 82, the division will review
the complaint and determine whether it warrants investigation
once a complaint is received. If not, the department would
dismiss the complaint. If the complaint merits further review,
it would be forwarded to the attorney general's office. The
attorney general has the discretion to conduct an investigation,
which is similar to law enforcement or prosecutorial discretion.
The cases will be prioritized if the attorney general is
inundated with complaints.
2:02:49 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for assurance that the determination would
be objective rather than subjective. She asked if the Division
of Elections would have access to legal advice for its
assessment process. She said she would prefer strict criteria be
developed that the division must follow.
MS. MILLS answered that the bill provides a standard to
determine if the complaint is frivolous or alleges some type of
violation. Someone might think an action or behavior constitutes
a violation or is illegal, but it is not. The division will
consult with the Department of Law (DOL) on these matters.
2:04:20 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Information and
Project Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that [AS 15.56.140] (l) in SB 82 defines frivolous. He
characterized the definition as a standard one in law, including
in Civil Rule 11. It read:
(1) "frivolous" means
(A) not reasonably based on evidence or on
existing law or a reasonable extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law; or
(B) brought to harass the subject of the
complaint or to cause unnecessary delay or
needless expense;
2:04:49 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that the Division of Election's staff are
not attorneys. She asked what assurances could be made that the
division staff will be trained or if they will seek legal advice
from DOL.
MS. MILLS answered that currently, DOL's attorney assigned to
the Division of Elections works very closely with the division.
She assured members that the division does not take action
without consulting the DOL. Further, DOL works with the division
on pamphlets and procedures used when determining which votes to
count or not count. She said she anticipates DOL will provide
the division with examples of how the statute works to allow the
division to implement the statute consistently. She clarified
that the division director would be making these decisions.
2:06:26 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern about the number of complaints
that the division and the attorney general could handle. He
asked whether the penalty provisions would be codified.
MS. MILLS responded that two types of penalties apply. One
addresses compliance; the second would require paying attorney
fees and costs if DOL prevails in the lawsuit. In addition, DOL
could enforce civil penalties against the complainant as ordered
by a court. Civil penalties can range from zero to $25,000,
depending on the severity of the violation.
2:07:27 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked again how DOL would handle large numbers of
complaints in terms of training or prosecution.
MS. MILLS answered that the Division of Elections already has a
high volume of complaints. The division anticipates it can
continue to handle the complaints. She pointed out that DOL
prepared a fiscal note for the referrals to the department. She
explained it already takes more than one attorney to assist the
division in peak times. DOL currently has an election team. She
said DOL would need additional resources including an
investigator and an attorney. The department would use its
consumer protection investigator as part of the team. She
anticipated that complaints would be made post-election and
during the initiative process. She explained that DOL envisions
both investigators being cross-trained to handle election or
consumer protection complaints.
2:09:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for the volume of complaints the Division of
Elections anticipates. He expressed concern that the provisions
in SB 82 will provide an avenue for campaigns to attack their
opponents.
MS. MILLS deferred to Ms. Fenumiai to respond.
2:10:49 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, Juneau, Alaska, responded that she does not
have the means to predict the number of complaints. Still, in
consultation with DOL, she believes that the division could
handle them.
2:11:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to the complaint process shown on slide
7. When the division receives a complaint, the division will
make a determination whether the complaint is frivolous. He
asked whether an aggrieved complainant is entitled to an appeal.
MS. MILLS responded that currently, the bill does not provide
for an appeal process, but the attorney general has independent
authority, so a complainant could informally appeal to the
attorney general.
2:13:06 PM
MR. FLYNN provided a sectional analysis of the bill. He
summarized the bill as follows [original punctuation provided]:
This bill would add a section to the Elections Title
15 chapter 56.
Subsection (a) would allow anyone can file a written
complaint alleging a violation of state election laws
or regulations to the Division of Elections. The
complaint must be filed within 30 days after an
election or 30 days after the alleged violation
occurred, whichever is later.
Subsection (b) directs the Division of Elections to
refer alleged violations of campaign finance laws
under AS 15.13 to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC). The division has the discretion to refer all
other complaints to the attorney general. If the
complaint is incomplete, frivolous, or does not allege
a violation, the division can request additional
information or it could dismiss the complaint.
2:13:59 PM
Subsection (c) allows the attorney general to
investigate an alleged violation identified by a
complainant, the division, or the attorney general.
Subsection (d) authorizes the attorney general to
conduct an investigation by subpoenaing witnesses for
documents, holding hearings under oath, sending
interrogatories and examining records.
Subsection (e) provides that the records or
intelligence resulting from the investigations are not
public records, except that the attorney general may
issue statements describing the activities that
violate election law.
Subsection (f) directs the attorney general to inform
the Division of Elections of the results of an
investigation with the option to submit a report. If
the complaint against a state agency or employee has
merit, the division will make efforts to take
corrective action. The records and intelligence
information resulting from the investigation remain
confidential unless they are submitted to a court or
used by the division as the basis for a course of
action.
2:14:56 PM
Subsection (g) allows the attorney general to sue for
injunctive relief after the investigation provided the
alleged violation is not a violation of campaign
finance laws.
Subsection (h) allows the attorney general to seek a
civil penalty of not more than $50,000 per violation
along with reasonable fees and costs, including the
cost of the investigation.
Subsections (i) and (j) allow the division and the
attorney general to adopt regulations to implement
this section.
Subsection (k) clarifies that the person filing the
complaint may also file an independent civil action in
superior court.
Subsection (l) defines frivolous, state agency and
state employee.
2:16:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the requirement that complaints
must be filed within 30 days of an election was adequate. She
stated that tight races are often not decided quickly. She
suggested that DOL could respond at the next hearing.
[SB 82 was held in committee.]
SB 9-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG
2:16:59 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 9, "An Act relating to
alcoholic beverages; relating to the regulation of
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of alcoholic
beverages; relating to licenses, endorsements, and permits
involving alcoholic beverages; relating to common carrier
approval to transport or deliver alcoholic beverages; relating
to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to offenses
involving alcoholic beverages; amending Rule 17(h), Alaska Rules
of Minor Offense Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
[SB 9 was heard on 3/29/21 and 4/7/21. This is the third
hearing.]
2:17:15 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD opened public testimony on SB 9.
She asked the sponsor's staff to give a brief summary of SB 9
for the public's benefit.
2:17:51 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, stated
that SB 9 is a comprehensive rewrite and reorganization of Title
4. It would streamline the process and make it easier for
licensees, the Alcoholic Beverage and Control Board (ABC Board)
staff and the general public to understand.
2:18:52 PM
NICK SPIROPOULOS, Borough Attorney, Mat-Su Borough, Wasilla,
Alaska, spoke in support of local control for alcoholic beverage
licenses. He said he previously sent a letter and resolution on
behalf of the Mat-Su Borough supporting SB 9. He stated that
municipalities hold a wide diversity of views with differing
local concerns, growth patterns, and attitudes on the
development of retailers, lodging and restaurants serving
alcohol. He emphasized that there is no mechanism under current
state law or in the proposed changes in SB 9 to allow
municipalities to determine whether additional alcohol licenses
would be appropriate. Only 20 percent of the Mat-Su Borough's
110,000 residents live within the cities. More local control
would allow for the increased economic development of businesses
where alcohol is part of the business model. The larger
populations in the Mat-Su Borough reside along the Knik Goose
Bay Road and at Meadow Lakes and Big Lake. In addition, people
live in the core area between Wasilla and Palmer.
2:20:05 PM
MR. SPIROPOULOS said the Mat-Su Borough also has smaller
population centers clustered in Butte, Sutton, Willow and
Talkeetna. The Mat-Su Borough believes it should decide whether
additional alcohol licensing might be appropriate in these
areas. He suggested that with planning and land use regulations,
local governments such as the Mat-Su Borough could coregulate
these activities with the state in a manner similar to how the
coregulation of marijuana activities currently happens. The
Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office has its rules, but local
government also establishes rules and regulations on the number
of allowable businesses.
MR. SPIROPOULOS offered his view that the state already has
mechanisms in state law to restrict licenses and address
specific bad actors. He said that the local government could
effectively regulate businesses serving alcohol even if the
number of licenses were to increase. He offered the Mat-Su
Borough's support for increased local control and for Senator
Hughes's Amendment 3 to SB 9 [labeled B.15, adopted on 4/7/21].
2:21:32 PM
JESSICA VIERA, Executive Director, Greater Wasilla Chamber of
Commerce, Wasilla, Alaska, expressed concerns about liquor
license population limits in SB 9. The Greater Wasilla Chamber
of Commerce has long listed local control on its legislative
priority list. She emphasized that these decisions should rest
with the home rule or first class municipalities. The state's
population limits on alcohol licenses act as a barrier to
business in the Mat-Su Borough. The Mat-Su Borough's population
sprawls over 25,000 square miles, but people gather in city
centers. Establishing license limits based on population within
the City of Wasilla when the area's population is five times
that doesn't make sense and restricts the free market.
MS. VIERA highlighted that some licensees purchase a liquor
license and sell it on the secondary market for hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Limiting the number of liquor licenses
increases the value of liquor licenses in the secondary market.
The Mat-Su Borough needs to continue to expand the amenities it
offers in breweries, pubs, restaurants, and Costco, or the
region will lose its appeal. The Chamber of Commerce wants the
area to thrive and not struggle under arbitrary restrictions
designed to manage the worst bad actors without considering
other license holders. She suggested members consider an
amendment to allow first-class and home rule municipalities to
control the number of licenses issued within their
jurisdictions.
2:25:16 PM
SARAH OATES, President; Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Cabaret,
Hotel, Restaurant, and Retailers Association (CHARR), Anchorage,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9, which represents a consensus
of the stakeholders. CHARR is the state's nonprofit association
for the hospitality industry, representing many of the nearly
2,000 statewide liquor license holders.
MS. OATES stated that the rewrite of Title 4 is in its 10th
year. She stated that in 2019, the public health and public
safety state and municipal regulatory bodies and all three
industry tiers reached consensus. She urged members to pass SB 9
to provide long-term regulatory certainty and desperately needed
financial stability for the industry. During COVID-19, liquor
license holders suffered devastating blows. The liquor license
industry represents $2 billion in annual revenue in Alaska and
over 32,000 employees. SB 9 will provide a better regulatory
system containing many changes that will benefit all sectors and
stakeholders. She urged members to pass the bill as soon as
possible.
2:26:54 PM
JEROME HERTEL, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska State Fair,
Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9, as amended by
Amendment 3, labeled B.13 adopted by the committee on April 7,
2021. As many members know, in 2016, the Alaska State Fair's
recreational site license was in jeopardy because the fair did
not meet the established criteria. Senate Bill 16 grandfathered
the fair until new licenses were developed in the Title 4
rewrite. However, the Title 4 rewrite did not create a license
category that would allow the fair to operate as it has in the
past but would limit its operations to the annual state fair.
Currently, the fair hosts over 70 interim events each year.
Using other license categories for interim events, as was
suggested, would drastically limit the number of special events
and adversely affect the fair's revenue.
He spoke in support of Amendment 3 to SB 9 [labeled B.15,
adopted on 4/7/21]. Amendment 3 will allow the fair to operate
as it has for the past 39 years by serving beer and wine at non-
fair events. This will allow the fair to be self-sustaining,
without government subsidies, and give back to the community and
state. He highlighted that the Alaska State Fair's economic
impact is over $26 million in the state.
2:30:45 PM
CRYSTAL NYGARD, Deputy Administrator, City of Wasilla, Wasilla,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9. She stated that she has been a
strong supporter of Mat-Su's private sector for over 17 years.
The private sector seeks consistency and predictability. She has
talked to local businesses that want to serve wine or beer at
their establishments. She urged members to pass SB 9. She asked
members to support local control.
2:32:52 PM
TIFFANY HALL, Executive Director, Recover Alaska, Anchorage,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9 because of the health and
safety provisions included in the bill, which are largely
evidence-based practices to reduce underage drinking, increase
public safety by reducing alcohol-related violence and crime and
alcohol-related deaths. She stated that Recover Alaska works to
reduce excessive alcohol use and harm across the state. The
organization has worked with over 120 stakeholders on the Title
4 rewrite for over nine years. She said that alcohol-related
problems in Alaska cost the state $2.4 billion every year,
including costs for criminal justice, health care, lost
productivity, traffic collisions, and social services.
MS. HALL said SB 9 will make the statutes easier to understand
and easier for the Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office to
enforce. She characterized SB 9 as a huge win for Alaskans. She
expressed concern about Amendment [1] labeled B.13 and Amendment
[3], labeled B.15 because these amendments do not enforce
population limits, which are proven to reduce alcohol-related
crime, violence, deaths, and underage alcohol use. She stated
that overall, Recover Alaska is very supportive of SB 9.
2:35:08 PM
ROBIN MINARD, Chief Communications Officer, Mat-Su Health
Foundation, Wasilla, Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9 in its
original form. The foundation does not support Amendment 1 or
Amendment 3, previously adopted. She said the foundation shares
ownership with Mat-Su Regional Medical Center. It invests its
share of the profits into the community to achieve its mission
of improving Mat-Su residents' health and wellness. The
foundation has participated in the Title 4 rewrite.
MS. MINARD stated that Alaska's alcohol laws need to be updated.
The community ranks alcohol and substance abuse as the number
one health issue in the region. The police chief and medical
personnel identify alcohol issues as creating prevalent problems
in the community, including domestic violence and child
maltreatment. The foundation engages in many strategies to
reduce the harm of alcohol misuse, including preventing underage
drinking and promoting resilient youth in families and
communities. SB 9 results from a partnership with the industry
and stakeholders who have worked together to design a bill that
promotes responsible alcohol use by adults, reduces underage
consumption and supports better enforcement of Alaska's alcohol
laws. While the foundation's interest is primarily health, it
recognizes that SB 9 benefits local businesses and that a sound
economy is an important aspect of a healthy economy.
2:37:07 PM
LEE ELLIS, President, Brewers Guild of Alaska, Anchorage,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 9 as introduced since it is a
critical step for the hospitality industry and the alcohol-
manufacturing industry. He said it will clean up regulatory and
statutory language, reduce burdens for distilleries and
breweries, and address public health concerns. He stated that
the Brewers Guild represents 39 breweries, two distilleries and
three wineries in Alaska. The guild has participated in the
Title 4 rewrite process since the beginning. Everyone has worked
very hard to achieve a bill that makes sense for everyone. He
urged members to move it forward.
2:38:44 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD closed public testimony on SB 9. She stated that
the committee will accept emails until 5 p.m. today.
[The committee treated it as though public testimony was
reopened.]
2:39:43 PM
GLENDA LEDFORD, Mayor, City of Wasilla, Wasilla, Alaska, spoke
in opposition to SB 9 as currently written because it does not
promote a fair business climate. At the same time, it attempts
to safeguard public health and safety in an already overburdened
system. In 2014, after the legalization of marijuana, the state
enacted a strong regulatory framework that tasked local
governments with implementing regulations. SB 9 could mirror the
marijuana model by creating the same regulatory framework in
home rule cities with police powers and zoning invoking local
control. However, the current version of SB 9 does not provide
for maximum local control. Statewide population restrictions
contained in AS 04.11.400 (a) ignore local conditions or
preferences, which translates into significantly limited
flexibility for innovative new business models and tangible
benefits for local governments.
MAYOR LEDFORD said the proposed AS 04.11.405 permits a few
limited first class and home rule cities and municipalities to
petition the board for additional licenses for restaurant
licenses only. Further, it contains other requirements a
municipality must meet to be granted a license.
2:41:52 PM
MAYOR LEDFORD said the City of Wasilla is the sixth largest city
in Alaska, representing the economic epicenter of the Mat-Su
Borough. Combined statistics from the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, Mat-Su Convention & Visitors
Bureau and the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program identified that
over 110,000 individuals and consumers frequent the city. Under
SB 9, the city would never offer the community additional fine
dining or shopping choices because the numerous companies and
restaurants seeking to do business in the Mat-Su Valley cannot
acquire the licensing. These businesses include Costco, which
could critically enhance food security in an emergency and
disaster situation. SB 9, as currently proposed, will adversely
affect all first-class and home rule cities in a much greater
economic capacity.
2:43:18 PM
MAYOR LEDFORD reported that Wasilla currently does not have any
bar, package, restaurant, and club licenses available. The city
currently licenses one brewery, three wineries, with one pending
winery license, three distilleries, and one recreational site
license. The City of Wasilla opposes SB 9, she said.
2:43:51 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD closed public testimony on SB 9.
2:44:30 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 9, said he appreciated all the work on the bill.
2:44:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he hopes the bill will pass out of committee.
However, he questioned the validity of population limits. He
stated that he received a number of research studies from a
previous testifier, which he read. However, he did not find the
studies provided proof that per capita quotas limiting the
number of alcohol establishments protects public health and
safety. These studies make a compelling case for density limits,
which is the number of alcohol establishments in a physical
area. Density limits work from large urban centers to rural
South Africa. He acknowledged that basing licenses on density
limits is not part of Alaska's current alcohol law, which does
not significantly change the bill. One amendment the committee
passed provides a valuable locally-initiated release valve. He
offered his view that the committee improves the public policy
in SB 9.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if he was referring to Amendment [3] B.15.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that he did not recall the number of the
amendment.
2:46:37 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she was unsure if Mayor Ledford was aware
that the bill was amended beyond restaurant licenses to all
types of licenses.
2:46:54 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 9, Version B, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection CSSB 9(JUD) was reported from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:47:27 PM
At ease
SB 15-OPEN MEETINGS ACT; PENALTY
2:51:16 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 15, SENATE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to
the Open Meetings Act; and establishing a civil penalty for
violations of the open meeting requirements by members of
governmental bodies."
[CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 15(CRA) was before the committee. Public
testimony was opened and closed on 3/31/21.]
2:51:46 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD stated her intention to hold the bill in
committee.
2:52:20 PM
MELODIE WILTERDINK, Staff, Senator Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that SB 15 intends to
strengthen the Open Meetings Act by adding civil penalties for
those officials who hold meetings that are not open to the
public.
2:53:32 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment [2, labeled as Amendment
3, work order 32-LS0176\G.6]:
32-LS0176\G.6
Bannister
4/1/21
AMENDMENT [2]
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 15(CRA)
Page 1, line 2, following "by":
Insert "certain elected"
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "and the attorney general"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete ", unless the person is a member of the
commission"
Page 2, lines 1 - 14:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "who is an elected or appointed public
official and"
Insert "that is made up of elected public
officials"
Page 2, lines 19 - 23:
Delete ", except that if a member of the Alaska
Public Offices Commission is alleged to have violated
this subsection, the attorney general shall enforce
this subsection under AS 44.23.020(l). In this
subsection, "governmental body" does not include a
community council established by a municipality"
Insert ". In this subsection,
(1) "elected public official" means a
person who has been elected to a governmental body at
a regular or special election held by a municipality,
school district, or regional educational attendance
area;
(2) "knowingly" has the meaning given in
AS 11.81.900(a)"
Page 2, lines 26 - 27:
Delete "AS 44.23.020(l), added by sec. 2 of this
Act, AS 44.62.310(h)(4) and (5), added by sec. 3 of
this Act,"
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 2"
CHAIR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment [2] would clarify that
SB 15 applies to elected officials but not to members of boards
and commissions or non-elected task force or subcommittee
members.
2:54:17 PM
SENATOR MYERS related his understanding that it would not apply
to the executive branch.
SENATOR HUGHES said that is correct. She expressed concern about
the size of the fiscal note and the number of people impacted
since people may be unwilling to volunteer to serve. She stated
that boards and commissions typically meet much less often than
municipal government such as community councils and assemblies.
Instead, the bill narrowly focuses on the elected bodies that
pass ordinances for local municipalities.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if a planning commission determining
Alaskans' rights to develop private property would be exempt and
not be subject to penalties if those decisions were made behind
closed doors. Further, the bill would not apply to licensing
boards that determine people's ability to acquire a professional
license.
SENATOR HUGHES answered yes. She said planning commissions and
licensing boards typically do not have a history of complaints.
SENATOR KIEHL recalled issues with planning commissions. He
asked whether this would apply to the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA) or the Regulatory Commission of Alaska even
though their issues pertain to major businesses.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that SB 15 relates to elected
officials. The intent is to limit the focus on the areas with
the most complaints.
2:56:46 PM
SENATOR HUGHES added that if SB 15 works well, a bill could be
introduced to expand the penalty provisions to include other
officials. However, that could affect thousands of individuals
so the fiscal impact would be much greater.
CHAIR REINBOLD said Senator Kiehl has a valid point. She
expressed concern that violations could occur on boards and
commissions. She offered to work with Senator Kiehl in the
future to address those concerns.
SENATOR SHOWER asked for the sponsor's perspective on the intent
of the bill and the possibility of expanding the penalty
provisions at some future date to address Senator Kiehl's
concerns.
MS. WILTERDINK responded that the sponsor wanted to include
elected officials. The sponsor did not want to discourage people
from volunteering to serve on board and commissions because they
may be subject at hefty fines. She acknowledged that Senator
Kiehl raised important considerations.
2:59:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if anyone had any ideas how to bridge the
concerns.
CHAIR REINBOLD suggested the language could read "may" instead
of "shall." However, she did not believe that change would
address the fiscal impact.
CHAIR REINBOLD removed her objection.
2:59:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged that the state and municipalities ask
much from those who serve as volunteers on boards and
commissions. This raises a constitutional issue regarding equal
protection. He characterized the Open Meetings Act as good
policy. Alaska should be able to view governmental debate and
actions taken. He said he does not want to hold up the bill. He
said he would not object to Amendment [2].
There being no further objection, Amendment [2] was adopted.
3:00:45 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment [3] [labeled as
Amendment 2, work order 32-LS-0176\G.5]:
32-LS0176\G.5
Bannister
4/1/21
AMENDMENT [3]
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 15(CRA)
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "civil penalty"
Insert "warning and civil and criminal penalties"
Page 1, line 10, following "heard":
Insert ", except that, if the alleged violation
would be the person's third violation, the commission
shall refer the matter to the attorney general for
criminal proceedings against the respondent under
AS 44.62.310(i)"
Page 1, line 12, following "shall":
Insert ", if the violation is the respondent's
first violation, give the respondent a warning under
AS 44.62.310(i) or, if the violation is the
respondent's second violation,"
Page 2, line 4, following "heard":
Insert ", except that, if the alleged violation
would be the member's third violation, the attorney
general shall institute criminal proceedings against
the respondent under AS 44.62.310(i)"
Page 2, line 6, following "shall":
Insert ", if the violation is the respondent's
first violation, give the respondent a warning under
AS 44.62.310(i) or, if the violation is the
respondent's second violation,"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "liable to the state for a civil penalty
not to exceed $1,000"
Insert "subject to a warning if the violation is
the member's first violation, liable to the state for
a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 if the violation
is the member's second violation, or guilty of a class
B misdemeanor if the violation is the member's third
violation. The Alaska Public Offices Commission shall
advise a member in the warning that a second violation
is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 and
a third violation is a class B misdemeanor"
CHAIR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
3:00:53 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment [3] would add three
tiers to the penalty provisions for Open Meetings Act
violations. The first offense would result in a warning, the
second violation would impose a $1,000 fine, and the third
violation would impose a class B misdemeanor.
3:01:15 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked for the penalties for a class B misdemeanor.
SENATOR HUGHES answered that a class B misdemeanor establishes
penalties of up to 90 days in jail and $2,000 in fines.
CHAIR REINBOLD removed her objection.
3:01:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL objected. He expressed concern that establishing
criminal penalties for inherently civil matters is excessive. He
expressed concern about local taxpayers bearing the brunt of
criminal charges filed against city employees. The legislature's
fiscal notes project costs to the state but the legislature does
not see the projected impacts on small municipalities and
cities. He stated that larger cities and municipalities have
full-time staff to represent their employees, but smaller ones
pay hourly attorney fees.
3:03:09 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he agrees that this will result in
additional costs to taxpayers. However, the total cost is not
limited to financial costs but the cost to citizens for repeated
violations by elected officials that impact ethical governance.
He emphasized the importance of having effective enforcement
policies in place.
CHAIR REINBOLD offered her view that the public was treated
poorly by the Municipality of Anchorage during the pandemic. She
offered her support for Amendment [3].
3:04:56 PM
MS. WILTERDINK said the sponsor supports Amendment [3].
3:05:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES spoke in support of the tiered approach to
violations. She said she believes a class B misdemeanor is
appropriate for the third offense.
SENATOR KIEHL maintained his objection.
3:05:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Myers, Hughes, Shower, and
Reinbold voted in favor of Amendment 2 and Senator Kiehl voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a 4:1 vote.
3:06:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL restated his motion to adopt Amendment 1, [work
order 32-LS 0176\G.3 which was set aside on 3/31/21].
32-LS0176\G.3
Bannister
3/25/21
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 15(CRA)
Page 1, line 3, following "Commission":
Insert ", the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics,"
Page 1, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 24.60.037 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 24.60.037. Open meetings violations. If the
committee receives a complaint against a person for a
violation described in AS 44.62.310(i), the committee
shall give the respondent due notice and an
opportunity to be heard. If, at the conclusion of the
hearing, the committee determines that the respondent
engaged in the alleged violation, the committee shall
assess a civil penalty under AS 44.62.310(i). The
determination of the committee under this section may
be appealed to the superior court. The committee
shall, by regulation, establish procedures to
implement this section, including procedures for
investigating and holding hearings on complaints."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 44.62.310(h)(3) is amended to read:
(3) "public entity" means an entity of the state
or of a political subdivision of the state including an
agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a
public authority or corporation, a body of the legislative
branch of state government, a municipality, a school
district, and other governmental units of the state or a
political subdivision of the state; "public entity" [IT]
does not include the court system [OR THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(4) "body of the legislative branch of
state government" means
(A) the senate;
(B) the house of representatives;
(C) the senate and the house of
representatives meeting in joint session;
(D) a committee of the legislature, other
than the Committee on Committees, but including a
standing committee, special committee, joint
committee, conference or free conference committee,
committee of the whole, and permanent interim
committee;
(E) a legislative commission, task force,
or other group established by statute or resolution;
or
(F) a caucus of members of one or more of
the bodies set out in (A) - (E) of this paragraph;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 2, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "has the meaning given in AS 39.50.200 but
does not include a judicial officer"
Insert "means
(A) a person included in the definition of
"public official" in AS 39.50.200, except a judicial
officer; and
(B) a member of the legislature;"
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, line 17, following "body":
Insert ", except a community council established
by a municipality,"
Page 2, line 20, following "a":
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 22, following "AS 44.23.020(l)":
Insert ";
(2) member of a body of the legislative
branch of state government is alleged to have violated
this subsection, the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics established under AS 24.60.130 shall enforce
this subsection under AS 24.60.037.
(j) In the case of an alleged violation under
(i) of this section by a member of a body of the
legislative branch of state government, if there is a
conflict between (i) of this section and the uniform
rules of the legislature, the uniform rules govern"
Page 2, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "In this subsection, "governmental body"
does not include a community council established by a
municipality."
Page 2, line 26, following "Act,":
Insert "AS 24.60.037, as repealed and reenacted
by sec. 2 of this Act,"
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "sec. 2 of this Act, AS 44.62.310(h)(4)
and (5), added by sec. 3 of this Act,"
Insert "sec. 3 of this Act, AS 44.62.310(h)(3),
as amended by sec. 4 of this Act, AS 44.62.310(h)(4) -
(6), added by sec. 5"
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "AS 44.62.310(i), added by sec. 4"
Insert "AS 44.62.310(i) and (j), added by sec. 6"
CHAIR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
3:06:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 1 would make the
legislature subject to the Open Meetings Act. It would also
require a concurrent resolution to change the Uniform Rules. He
explained that his staff prepared a history of the instances
when the legislature exempted itself from what is required of
officials in the Open Meetings Act. He summarized the history by
stating that a number of legislators found it difficult to hold
all of their deliberations in the full public view and on the
record. However, it is good public policy and is what the law
requires of the executive branch and SB 15 would require of
municipalities.
3:08:13 PM
SENATOR MYERS related his understanding that the genesis of SB
15 was due to the Municipality of Anchorage closing its meetings
to the public. He asked if SB 15 passed, if it would force the
legislature to open the Capitol to the public, which has been
closed due to the pandemic.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that the Open Meetings Act provides for
public participation by teleconference. Amendment 1 would
require legislators to hold their discussions on the record.
CHAIR REINBOLD express concern that some people might not have
internet access. She stated that she would like the Capitol
reopened to the public.
3:09:13 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he understands the sponsor's concern. He
suggested that if the sponsor would like all activities of
legislators open, the committee should consider moving the
Capitol.
3:10:18 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD pointed out that this committee is the only
committee of referral for SB 15. She expressed concern that many
legislators cannot go home to their families, so a dinner out
could violate the Open Meetings Act. Legislators often reside in
Juneau for months. She expressed concern about the unintended
consequences of Amendment 1. She suggested the bill should have
more than one committee of referral to address the issues.
3:11:27 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the legislature is the only body that
Amendment 1 would apply to that must meet for three to four
months.
3:12:13 PM
SENATOR MYERS pointed out that the judiciary is exempt from the
Open Meetings Act.
3:12:38 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that the committee should consider
that legislators are in Juneau during the legislative session.
Many legislators go out to dinner in small groups and engage in
other activities.
3:13:37 PM
SENATOR HUGHES agreed that transparency is important. However,
the legislature operates outside the Open Meetings Act, under
the Uniform Rules and the Legislative Ethics Act. Legislators
also receive extensive training on ethics, she said. Currently,
the legislature struggles to meet the 90-day and the 120-day
session limit. Amendment 1 could drastically increase committee
hours when the legislature is intended to be a citizen
legislature. While she said she understands the desire for
transparency, she cannot support Amendment 1.
3:15:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL emphasized there could be some misconceptions
about the Open Meetings Act. He related his personal experience
serving on the Juneau Assembly. He said the Open Meetings Act
did not prohibit him from attending dinners, social engagements
and ribbon cuttings with other assembly members. Still, he could
not count votes or discuss municipal issues at these events. He
characterized the Uniform Rules and Legislative Ethics Act
combined as "fairly weak tea" compared to the Open Meetings Act
provisions. People and the press will observe legislators
wherever they meet, whether they are in is a small city or a
large one. He agreed that the legislature must complete its work
timely and that working under the Open Meetings Act would be
less efficient. However, it will provide the additional
transparency and accountability that SB 15 requires of other
elected officials.
3:18:17 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that the legislature operates
differently and Amendment 1 would make significant changes. He
suggested that the rules the legislature operates under would be
better considered in a separate bill.
3:19:35 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD expressed her frustration that the legislature
operates under the Uniform Rules and Legislative Ethics Act so
adding the Open Meetings Act adds an unnecessary layer. She said
she tends to lean towards voting no on Amendment 1 but she could
support it if the Capitol was moved.
CHAIR REINBOLD maintained her objection.
3:20:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 1 and Senators Myers, Hughes, Shower, and Chair
Reinbold voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a
1:4 vote.
CHAIR REINBOLD held SB 15 in committee.
3:22:21 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Reinbold adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 82 Presentation.4.12.21.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Sponsor Statement version A.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Law Fiscal Note.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB15 Amdnement G.5 Hughes.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Amendment G.6 Hughes.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 amendment G.3 Kiehl.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |