02/12/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB163 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2024
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to animal adoption and foster care records."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 163
SHORT TITLE: ANIMAL ADOPTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
01/16/24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (S) JUD
02/09/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/24 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/12/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, District Q
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 163.
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff
Senator Robert Myers
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 163
on behalf of the sponsor.
JILL DOLAN, Borough Attorney
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 163.
KIMBERLY IMBERT, Shelter Operations Supervisor
Division of Animal Control
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony and answered
questions during the discussion of SB 163.
CHRISTOPHER LOSCAR, Director
Mat-Su Borough Animal Care and Regulations
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony and answered
questions during the discussion of SB 163.
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Strategic Projects Coordinator
Mayor's Office
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of SB 163.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:42 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Giessel, Tobin, Kaufman, and Chair Claman.
SB 163-ANIMAL ADOPTION RECORDS
1:36:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to animal adoption and foster care records."
He said this is the first hearing of this bill in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee. He invited the bill sponsor to
identify himself for the record and begin his remarks.
1:36:34 PM
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, District Q, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 163, explained the impetus for the
bill and spoke to the sponsor statement as follows:
The Fairbanks North Star Borough and some other
municipalities around the state have an animal
adoption situation. Borough animal control officers
pick up stray animals and hold them in shelters while
waiting for the owner to claim the animal. If animals
are unclaimed for long enough, the facility will put
them up for adoption. The problem comes weeks or
months later when the original owner discovers the
animal was adopted and submits a public records
request to find out by whom. On occasion, the original
owner will harass the new owner using the address or
phone number provided in the public records.
A few municipalities in the state generally withhold
adoption information and disclose it if they determine
that public health, safety, or welfare requires
disclosure. However, the standard is that a municipal
entity can only withhold information from a public
information request if there is a threat to safety.
This requires an analysis of each public records
request to determine if there is a public health,
safety, or welfare concern. It is important to note
that the municipality cannot ask a public record
requester for their specific purpose for requesting
those records. The information is released unless
animal control has a history or a reason to reach out
to the adopter to ask if they have concerns.
1:38:16 PM
This is a less than an ideal situation. SB 163 aims to
solve this situation by making the names and personal
identifiers of people adopting or fostering animals
not subject to public record requests. By doing this
at the state level, we are also providing cover for
our municipalities who are just trying to protect
animal adopters. While we see value in public scrutiny
of government records, we also want to protect
people's privacy. The proposed exemption fits in with
the other exemptions already in statute.
1:38:56 PM
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 163 on behalf of the sponsor:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1: Amends AS 40.25.120(a) Exemptions of Public
Record Disclosures. Establishes that records that
include names, addresses, or other information
identifying a person who has adopted or is providing
foster care for an animal is exempt from public record
disclosures.
1:39:36 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked about potential complications SB 163 might
introduce for investigators, animal control, or others
conducting investigations into allegations of animal cruelty or
adopters with nefarious intentions. She asked whether SB 163
would inadvertently make it more difficult to access records for
those providing that public good.
SENATOR MYERS expressed his belief that a public records request
is not the same as someone conducting an official investigation,
and deferred to Ms. Dolan.
1:40:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Dolan.
1:41:08 PM
JILL DOLAN, Borough Attorney, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Fairbanks, Alaska, confirmed that SB 163 would not hinder
municipalities from coordinating with the Alaska State Troopers
or animal control officers during investigations. However, this
legislation aims to restrict public access to records for those
attempting independent investigations. The Borough Attorney's
Office also receives requests for its investigation records, and
the office evaluates these requests to determine whether those
records should be withheld. This is slightly different than the
animal adoptive requests.
1:41:56 PM
SENATOR TOBIN followed up with two questions, asking:
• Whether investigations always stem from an animal control
operator or whether entities like an adoption or foster care
facility ever hire paid investigators to look into potential
issues.
• Whether this statutory change prohibits animal care facilities
from accessing records if they suspect an adopter is engaged
in nefarious action with adopted pets.
1:42:49 PM
MS. DOLAN replied that the system is complaint-driven and
described the FNSB complaint process:
• Any citizen, including private animal rescue organizations or
concerned individuals, can make a complaint.
• The animal control office receives these complaints.
• The internal animal control officer either investigates or
refers it to the Alaska State Troopers.
MS. DOLAN said that every municipality has different procedures.
She speculated that a private facility could perform an
investigation if it were under contract with a municipality and
acting as an agent for the municipality.
1:43:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated the general benefit of a broad public
records law is its ability to provide the public with
information they might need from the government. He noticed that
he expressed reluctance to limit this exception, then cited a
couple of limitations that already exist based on potential
risks, such as:
• requests involving law enforcement if release of personal
information could reasonably be expected to endanger somebody,
and
• requests involving infrastructure if release of personal
information could reasonably be expected to interfere with
public safety.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if there was a reason the sponsor did not
limit this legislation similarly, such as considering a
reasonable expectation that someone could be endangered.
1:45:02 PM
SENATOR MYERS replied that SB 163 involves private citizens
adopting animals, whereas he is talking about the State, State
employees, and State-owned property. He said that, except for
official investigations, he would find it difficult to justify
why someone would need access to the borough records of a person
who adopted an animal. He tends to err on the side of privacy
when it comes to private citizens. He explained that he tends to
presume that such requests are not made for a good reason. He
said that he would have a hard time coming up with a good
reason, hence erring on the side of individual privacy.
1:46:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that was a good response.
Senator KIEHL inquired about the specific language in the bill
amending AS 40.25.120(a). He asked whether this would allow the
release of a record if the personal information were redacted or
whether the language prevents the release of the record
entirely.
SENATOR MYERS deferred to Ms. Dolan or the Division of Animal
Control.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Dolan.
1:46:54 PM
MS. DOLAN replied that the legislation is worded to include the
records broadly, including other information identifying a
person. She explained that often when an animal is dropped off,
records are generated that extend beyond just the adoption
paperwork and contain identifying information. This legislation
is broad enough to allow those types of records to be redacted.
1:47:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that the committee think about whether
to craft this legislation so that it is specific to the
redaction of personally identifiable information or whether to
keep the entirety of the record non-disclosable.
1:47:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that although these discussions
often involve inquiries concerning the health, safety, and
welfare of pets, this legislation pertains to humans.
SENATOR MYERS replied that SB 163 is primarily aimed at the
health, safety, and welfare of the owners and people in their
household.
1:48:38 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL offered a hypothetical scenario of a person who
is bitten and asked whether this legislation would allow the
injured party to obtain that animal's shot records.
SENATOR MYERS replied that a bill passed several years ago
narrowed releasable information to the number of contagious
disease cases, such as rabies, that occurred within a given
area. These records would not include personal identifiers. As
for the availability of shot records involving a bite, he
deferred the question to animal control.
1:49:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Imbert.
1:50:13 PM
KIMBERLY IMBERT, Shelter Operations Supervisor, Division of
Animal Control, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks, Alaska,
asked the committee member to repeat the question.
1:50:17 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL restated the question. She offered the scenario
of an individual bitten by a dog and asked, the owner's personal
information aside, whether the injured individual could obtain
the animal's vaccination records.
MS. IMBERT replied that typically, the animal control officers
obtain the shot records, not the victims.
SENATOR GIESSEL sought confirmation that the victim would obtain
the shot records through the animal control officer.
MS. IMBERT replied that she believed so. She said the borough
shares vaccination information with victims according to borough
policy and procedures.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether SB 163 would change those policies
and procedures.
1:51:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN restated the question, asking whether SB 163 would
limit the release of vaccination information under the dog-bite
scenario.
MS. IMBERT said Ms. Dolan could better answer the question.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Dolan.
MS. DOLAN replied that SB 163 would not limit the borough; it
would be able to release the vaccination records.
1:52:19 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked the following questions:
• She offered a scenario of a mushing dog in a small community
that bites someone. She asked how the injured party would find
that dog's vaccination records.
• She read Section 1(a) and Section 1(a)(19) of SB 163, "Every
person has a right to inspect a public record in the state,
including public records in recorder's offices, except ...
records that include names, addresses, or other information
identifying a person who has adopted or is providing foster
care for an animal." She questioned the language of the added
provision, asking whether any of her public records would be
subject to inspection since she had adopted a dog.
1:53:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS clarified that Section 1(a)(19) only applies to
records pertaining to the adoption of an animal, not other
records.
SENATOR TOBIN said that she might ask Legal Services to ensure
the interpretation of the provision is correct.
1:54:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that it is disturbing that the original
owner of an animal would obtain the personal information of the
adopter for the sole purpose of harassing that person. SB 163
seeks to prevent that from occurring.
1:54:43 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked about microchipping dogs. She said her
adopted dog did not have a microchip when she rehomed it, so she
had one inserted. She wondered whether someone other than a
veterinarian could access the registration data with the right
tools.
SENATOR MYERS deferred to Animal Control.
1:55:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the questions to Mr. Loscar.
1:55:31 PM
CHRISTOPHER LOSCAR, Director, Mat-Su Borough Animal Care and
Regulations, Palmer, Alaska, said anyone can purchase a
microchip scanner and use it to scan a chip. Multiple companies
maintain microchip databases, and their policies governing the
release of personal identifying data depend entirely on that
company. If the animal changes hands, the new owner is
responsible for updating the registration data with that
microchip company. He said Animal Care frequently finds that
chipped dogs are registered to the previous owner because the
adopter never updated the registration data. Since there is no
consistency in how the databases are maintained, it is really
difficult. He stated that he was unsure if he had answered her
question.
1:56:44 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented that he answered the question very
well. She sought confirmation that SB 163 only pertains to the
State of Alaska records, meaning the provision has no control
over private vendors.
SENATOR MYERS replied that is correct. SB 163 only pertains to
State or municipal records. It would not affect records
maintained out-of-state or by a private company.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if that would include records maintained
by a private veterinarian.
SENATOR MYERS replied that would be correct, yes.
1:57:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a public service reminder, encouraging
owners to update the chip registration info of their
microchipped adopted pets.
1:57:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced invited testimony on SB 163.
1:58:08 PM
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Strategic Projects Coordinator, Mayor's
Office, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks, Alaska, gave
invited testimony in support of SB 163, stating the FNSB
Assembly passed legislation after issues of harassment occurred
involving adoptive owners. SB 163 encourages animal adoption by
protecting the privacy and safety of adoptive persons. She
described an incident where an animal owner was incarcerated and
lost their animals. After release, this person found who had
adopted the animals and proceeded to harass the adoptive owner.
She said another benefit of this legislation is that it protects
municipalities from potential litigation, removing some gray
areas in the Public Records Act.
2:00:19 PM
MR. LOSCAR thanked the bill sponsor for introducing SB 163. This
bill applies directly to the operations of municipal government
agencies. He expressed his belief that SB 163 is reasonable and
necessary legislation that safeguards the personal privacy of
members of the community. It helps to ensure public safety. He
said that his community had experienced safety concerns when the
borough released personal identifying information, especially in
cases where an owner forfeited the animal due to cruelty or
failure to provide humane care. Those animals become borough
property, then are adopted out. There have been issues where
former owners try to obtain information of the adopters. He said
there have also been issues where an owner surrenders their
animal and later has a change of heart. He surmised that this
legislation would encourage people to adopt and foster more
animals because the bill would keep their records confidential.
Increasing the number of adopters and fosters decreases shelter-
stay times, which benefits animals. He said the Mat-Su Borough
mayor and manager offered a letter of support.
2:02:05 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked about the length of time an owner has to
retrieve their animal from the shelter.
MR. LOSCAR replied that Mat-Su Animal Care:
• Holds the animal for three days if the animal has no
identifying tag or microchip. After that, the animal becomes
borough property.
• Holds the animal for five days if it has an identifying tag or
microchip. The shelter makes every effort to contact the owner
before the animal becomes borough property.
2:03:00 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked the FNSB Animal Control about the length
of time an owner has to retrieve their animal from the shelter.
MS. IMBERG replied that the duration of stay is:
• seventy-two hours or a three-business day hold without
identification or known owner,
• one hundred forty hours or a five-business day hold with
identification or a known owner, and
• ten business days in instances of protective custody where the
owner is incarcerated, and a peace officer delivers the
animal. She said that in these cases, the duration is longer.
2:03:51 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked about a person who is incapacitated and
unable to get to the shelter in three, five, or ten days. For
example, if a pet owner is hit by a car and hospitalized, she
asked about the mechanism for that person and pet to reunite.
MS. IMBERT replied that Animal Control does everything possible
to contact the next of kin or a power of attorney. The owner can
designate another party to pick up their pet.
2:04:57 PM
MR. LOSCAR replied that Mat-Su Animal Care has a similar process
for animal owners in protective custody or hospitalized. The
shelter looks for next of kin or a designated party to pick up
the animal. If the person hospitalized does not have a designee,
Animal Care will hold the animal until the person is released
from the hospital and able to reclaim the animal.
2:05:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mat-Su Animal Care counts only
business days, excluding weekends from its total count.
MR. LOSCAR answered that the count is by the hour for stray
holds, whether the animal has identification or not. So, the
duration of the hold is 72 or 140 hours. The clock starts when
the animal is brought in and the staff member processes the
intake.
2:06:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Imbert to offer remarks under invited
testimony.
2:06:35 PM
MS. IMBERT said that she has worked at Animal Control for 13
years. She has been interested in this topic for a long time
because adopters want to know about potential problems before
they adopt. She recounted adoption situations that involved
threatening behavior or dangerous persons where Animal Control
was able to withhold some records when the threats were obvious.
She said that when it comes to a person's pet, Animal Control
has done business with scary people, threatening staff and
public safety. She relayed the story of one creative individual
who transferred the microchipped data of an animal out of the
owner's name and into their name. She listed several reasons
that someone might turn over an animal to the shelter:
• urgent vet care needs,
• domestic disputes, for example, someone in the household
surrenders a pet that has no identification, but the pet was
not theirs, and
• owners who could not afford the stray hold fees.
MS. IMBERT said she sees many unhappy people. This impacts the
shelter's ability to rehome animals quickly because potential
adopters worry about the previous owner's state of mind. She
discussed public media, stating that she has seen negative posts
influencing potential adopters' decisions to rehome a pet. She
said the shelter wants the best outcome for the animals but is
also concerned about public safety and protecting individuals
from former animal owners who, in her opinion, are dangerous.
2:09:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN concluded invited testimony on SB 163.
2:10:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 163 in committee.
2:10:44 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 163 version A 1.16.24.PDF |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Sponsor Statement version A 1.26.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Sectional Analysis version A 1.26.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Support Document - FNSB Animal Adoption Questions and Answers 1.24.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 - FNSB Letter of Support 1.22.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Letter of Support - MSB Mayor and MSB Manager 2.9.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Letters of Support - Received as of 2.12.2024.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163 Supporting Document - Length of Holding Prior to Adoption Period 2.12.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/12/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |