03/27/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Police Standards Council, Alaska Public Office Commission | |
| HB44 | |
| SB186 | |
| HB138 | |
| SB210 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2018
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Police Standards Council
Michael Craig - Anchorage
Justin Doll - Anchorage
David Knapp - Palmer
Larry "Shane" Nicholson - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Anne Helzer - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; and requiring a legislator to request to be excused
from voting in an instance where the legislator may have a
financial conflict of interest."
- MOVED SCS CSSSHB 44(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to voter registration; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 186(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act establishing the month of March as Sobriety Awareness
Month."
- MOVED HB 138 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the misrepresentation of seafood and seafood
ingredients by retail food establishments."
- MOVED SB 210 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/23/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/17 (H) STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL
01/25/17 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17
01/25/17 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23(A) FOR SSHB 44
01/25/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/30/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM
02/08/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
02/08/17 (H) DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN, REINBOLD
02/08/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Moved CS SSHB 44(STA) Out of Committee
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/03/17 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1DNP 3NR
04/03/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX, TUCK, KREISS-TOMKINS
04/03/17 (H) DNP: BIRCH
04/03/17 (H) NR: JOHNSON, WOOL, KNOPP
04/08/17 (H) SUSTAINED RULING OF CHAIR Y23 N16 E1
04/08/17 (H) BEFORE HOUSE IN SECOND READING
04/08/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/08/17 (H) VERSION: CSSSHB 44(STA)
04/10/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/17 (S) STA, JUD
02/20/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/18 (S) Heard & Held
02/20/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/22/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/18 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/18 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/27/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 186
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/16/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/18 (S) STA, FIN
03/08/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: MARCH: SOBRIETY AWARENESS MONTH
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/22/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/17 (H) HSS, CRA
03/07/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/23/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/17 (H) Moved HB 138 Out of Committee
03/23/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/24/17 (H) HSS RPT 6DP 1NR
03/24/17 (H) DP: JOHNSTON, TARR, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-
LEONARD, KITO, SPOHNHOLZ
03/24/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN
04/04/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/04/17 (H) Moved HB 138 Out of Committee
04/04/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/17 (H) CRA RPT 5DP
04/05/17 (H) DP: WESTLAKE, SADDLER, TALERICO,
DRUMMOND, FANSLER
04/07/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/07/17 (H) VERSION: HB 138
04/10/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/17 (S) HSS, STA
02/12/18 (S) RETURNED TO HOUSE PER REQUEST
02/14/18 (H) BILL RECEIVED IN HOUSE
02/14/18 (H) BILL REPRINTED 2/14/18
02/14/18 (H) RETURNED TO SENATE
03/14/18 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/18 (S) Moved HB 138 Out of Committee
03/14/18 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/18 (S) HSS RPT 4DP
03/16/18 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, VON IMHOF, MICCICHE
03/27/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 210
SHORT TITLE: SEAFOOD MISREPRESENTATION ON MENUS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/19/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/18 (S) STA, JUD
03/27/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID KNAPP, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
LARRY SHANE NICHOLSON, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
JUSTIN DOLL, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
MIKE CRAIG, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
ANNE HELZER, Appointee
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Alaska Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
Senator Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed a committee substitute (CS) for HB
44, a legal memo from Legislative Legal, and Senate Concurrent
Resolution (SCR) for a title change to HB 44.
DAN WAYNE, Legislative Counsel
Division of Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed his memo regarding the
constitutionality of HB 44 and the initiative called "The Alaska
Government Accountability Act."
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor & State Affairs Section
Alaska Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed constitutionality questions
regarding HB 44 and the initiative called "The Alaska Government
Accountability Act."
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 44 and the initiative called
"The Alaska Government Accountability Act."
CHRITINE MARASIGAN, Staff
Senator Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the CS for SB 186.
JOSE BAHNKE, Director
Alaska Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the division's amendment for SB
186.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 138, provided an overview.
TASHA ELIZARDE, Staff
Representative Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis for HB 138.
KIM ZELLO, Advocate
Fallen Up Ministries
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
JULIE KITKA, President
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
TIFFANY HALL, Executive Director
Recover Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 210.
NATE GRAHAM, Staff
Senator Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of SB 210.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:32:32 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Giessel, Coghill, Wilson, Egan, and Chair
Meyer.
^Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Police Standards Council,
Alaska Public Office Commission
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Police Standards Council
Alaska Public Office Commission
3:33:38 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of the governor's
appointees. He asked the conferees to state their name and
provide the committee with a brief orientation about why they
want to be appointed or reappointed to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
3:34:24 PM
DAVID KNAPP, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council, Palmer,
Alaska, disclosed that he is a sergeant with the Alaska
Department of Corrections. He detailed that he has been with the
department for 13 years.
CHAIR MEYER asked if Sergeant Knapp was currently on the Alaska
Police Standard Council.
SERGEANT KNAPP answered yes. He disclosed that he has attended
one meeting.
3:35:03 PM
LARRY SHANE NICHOLSON, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards
Council, Kodiak, Alaska, disclosed that he is a sergeant with
the Alaska Wildlife Troopers. He detailed that he has been with
the Alaska State Troopers for 19 years and referenced his
curriculum vitae. He noted that he was recently appointed and
has not attended any meetings.
3:35:57 PM
JUSTIN DOLL, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, disclosed that he is the chief of police for
the Anchorage Police Department. He detailed that he has been
with the Anchorage Police Department for 22 years. He revealed
that he has been newly appointed to the council.
3:36:41 PM
MIKE CRAIG, appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, revealed that he has worked for Alyeska
Pipeline for 35 years and noted that for the past 2 years has
acted as the employee-concerns coordinator. He opined that his
current position with Alyeska Pipeline fits well with the charge
of what the council is hearing regarding conduct. He detailed
that he filled a spot on the council at the end of 2017 when Mr.
Richard Burton retired.
3:37:30 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened and closed public testimony.
SENATOR COGHILL said he had heard testimony from the appointees
in the Senator Judiciary Committee and noted that there were not
many questions but a lot of congratulations.
CHAIR MEYER agreed that all four appointees are great and will
do a fantastic job.
CHAIR MEYER read the following:
In accordance with AS 39.05.080, the Senate State
Affairs Committee has reviewed the appointees and
recommends the appointments be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration; this does not reflect
intent of any members to vote for or against the
confirmation of the individuals during any further
sessions.
CHAIR MEYER announced that the next appointee is Anne Helzer for
the Alaska Public Office Commission. He asked Ms. Helzer to
provide committee members with a brief orientation of her
background and address why she would like to serve on the Alaska
Public Office Commission.
3:39:53 PM
ANNE HELZER, Appointee, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Alaska Department of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska,
disclosed that she is an attorney who practices primarily in
trusts and estates, and small business formation and guidance.
She noted that she has attended a couple of APOC meetings. She
asserted that she would provide APOC with an unbiased and
impartial objective view on the proceedings. She emphasized that
she is not politically motivated but has an interest in things
that are done correctly and operating smoothly. She summarized
that she is thrilled at the opportunity to serve the state as an
APOC member.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that the APOC fact sheet details that the
commission has five members, two from each of the two political
parties and one member nominated by the majority vote of the
members of the commission. She asked which one of the
descriptions fits Ms. Helzer.
MS. HELZER revealed that she is a registered Republican;
however, she opined that her party affiliation would not carry
any weight in her role with APOC. She expressed that the APOC
issues tend to be statutory and she would have to be familiar
with the rules and laws. She added that she should be able to
take recommendations from staff members and other people that
are providing information in each case.
3:42:36 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that party affiliation does play a
role. She conceded that Ms. Helzer's adjudication should be
impartial, but noted that the political parties put names
forward for APOC. She asked how her name was put forward.
MS. HELZER answered that her understanding is she was nominated
by several people.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked her to clarify that she really does not
know whether one of the two political parties put her name
forward as is customary for the APOC seats.
MS. HELZER surmised that she was appointed by Tuckerman Babcock,
the Chair of the Alaska Republican Party, and other people also
recommended her. She reiterated that she is a registered
Republican but questioned her political affiliation for serving
as an APOC member.
SENATOR GIESSEL suggested that Ms. Helzer look at the Boards and
Commissions website and review APOC's fact sheet regarding the
appointments to familiarize herself with the process. She
thanked Ms. Helzer and noted that she appreciated her discussion
about impartiality and following the law, something that is
important.
3:44:16 PM
MS. HELZER replied that she would review the APOC appointment
process.
CHAIR MEYER noted Ms. Helzer's academic and activity background
and asked what brought her to Alaska.
MS. HELZER detailed that she went to college in New Hampshire
where she met her husband who is from Anchorage. She detailed
that both she and her husband decided to move to Alaska,
something that she considered both as a risk and an adventure.
She said she loves Alaska and considers the state her home even
though she was born in New York. She said she is thrilled at the
possibilities that Alaska brings and continues to bring her. She
disclosed that she has a thriving law practice that is exciting.
She detailed that she serves on the Anchorage Bar Association
Board as president and is active in many organizations. She
summarized that she is, "Very married to the state and will be
here for the rest of her life."
CHAIR MEYER addressed Ms. Helzer's resume and noted that her
preference was to be a member of the Alaska State Council on the
Arts, Alaska Commission on Aging, and the Aviation Advisory
Board, but was chosen to serve at APOC.
MS. HELZER replied that Chair Meyer's remark was not accurate.
She specified that she was asked during her interview with the
Office of the Governor as to what other boards she would be
interested in serving on and the boards that Chair Meyer noted
are boards that she would be very interested in serving on, but
she had come in for APOC.
3:47:16 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened and closed public testimony.
CHAIR MEYER read the following:
In accordance with AS 39.05.080, the Senate State
Affairs Committee has reviewed the appointee and
recommends the appointment be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration; this does not reflect
intent of any members to vote for or against the
confirmation of the individual during any further
sessions.
3:49:01 PM
At ease.
HB 44-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS, PER DIEM
3:50:42 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 44 (HB
44). He noted that the bill was heard on February 22 and there
was a Senate committee substitute (CS) for consideration.
3:51:07 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the Senate CS (SCS) for CSSSHB
44, version 30-LS0208\N as the working document.
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
3:51:45 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the Senate CS makes
some substantive changes to the bill. She explained that it
takes the rest of an initiative called "The Alaska Government
Accountability Act," Petition ID: 17AKGA, and puts it squarely
into HB 44.
She specified that there were five ideas in the initiative:
• Declaration of conflict; specifically, if a legislator or
legislator's family has a financial interest of $10,000 or
more.
• Acceptance of de minimis food or non-alcoholic beverage for
immediate consumption.
• Banning foreign travel.
• Eliminating per diem after 121 days.
• Not allowing foreign corporation or agents.
MS. MARASIGAN provided the following sectional analysis,
pointing out where the "five ideas" are located:
In your CS, version: N, sections 1 and 2 are taken
from the initiative, it's basically Section 9; this
deals with the foreign corporation or national
language, and that's what is in those two sections.
Sections 3, 4 and 5, found on page 6 of version N, the
Section 3 addresses the issue of disallowing any
foreign travel to be funded unless a report is made.
Section 4 deals with no per diem after 120 days.
Section 5 deals with moving expenses.
Section 6, we have the mention of the nonalcoholic
beverage piece. The majority of the rest of the bill
was in your original version R that you heard
previously.
Section 7, that corresponds to Section 1 that you've
heard previously about conflict of interest.
Section 8 corresponds to Section 2.
Section 9 corresponds to Section 3.
Section 11 corresponds to section 4.
Section 10 addresses alcoholic beverages.
The other major addition is having a new effective
date, which is found in Section 17.
3:55:08 PM
She continued as follows:
Taking this initiative and putting it into statutory
language, it takes some time simply because each,
Department of Law, the Legislature, each organization
has their way of drafting materials in order to
conform with their material that they have with
statute or etcetera. So, there was an accompanying
legal memo that was produced from Legislative Legal
that points out that while this version N before you,
the CS you have adopted is not absolutely identical,
it is very similar in that both the initiative and the
bill also raise constitutional issues.
The memo also points out the differences between the
bill drafted before you and the initiative in that it
can be attributed to drafting styles that I mentioned
previously but it is still substantive; for example,
one of little changes is that in the initiative we
talk about a de minimis for food and drink where the
bill before you simply states what we've been abiding
by in our ethics language as $15. Also, the
applicability of the initiative's prohibition on
campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign
influenced corporations, that language did not meet up
very well in the bill and in the initiative, and
there's some issues with constitutionality that the
drafter then points out in the legal memo to the
committee. So, having said that, the memo is pretty
clear that while there are some substantive
differences between the bill, the real differences are
very few and they amount to different ways of
addressing identical issues. So, the drafters
themselves said therefore while you can't predict the
certainty of the outcome of potential litigation, if a
court were to apply the three-part test to this that
the bill would in fact displace the initiative from
the election ballet.
There were four areas of constitutionality that the
legal memo addressed. One was the salary and expenses
of legislators, second was federal preemption, the
third was freedom of speech and association, and the
fourth was equal protection.
I do have legislative attorney Dan Wayne online to
answer any specific questions. Committee members
should be aware that this bill has a further referral
to Senate Judiciary and has had an additional referral
to Senate Finance.
3:58:03 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked Ms. Marasigan to verify that foreign travel is
not prohibited, but it must be approved as a legislative purpose
and a report must be filed after a legislator returns.
MS. MARASIGAN answered correct. She noted that the foreign
travel stipulation is in both the bill and the initiative.
CHAIR MEYER commented on HB 44 and the initiative as follows:
I want to let the committee know HB 44 dealt with the
conflict issue which I thought did a good job of
defining what a conflict is, I believe it is $10,000;
and then we got thinking if that matches the
initiative, let's look at the other things on the
initiative and just see if we can combine everything
else into this one bill, and if so then the initiative
wouldn't need to go before the voters if we are close
or close enough to the initiative.
So, looking at the other four items in the five parts
of that initiative, they all seem to be, I think, a
good idea as far as I was concerned and I'm hoping
that the committee does as well, and I did talk to the
sponsor both of this bill, HB 44, and also I believe
he's one of the three cosponsors on the initiative,
that's Representative Grenn, I spoke to him on
Thursday and asked him if he was okay with this, and I
didn't get answer.
So, I guess I don't know if no news is good news or he
hadn't had a chance to talk to the other two yet; but,
this bill does have two more committees to go to and I
think the biggest question right now is the
constitutionality of the bill and the initiative and
so the bill goes to Judiciary next which I'm sure the
Judiciary chair will iron that all out.
He addressed Mr. Wayne from Legislative Legal and noted
that he wrote his opinion making himself clear that HB 44
may be unconstitutional; however, he noted that Mr. Wayne
also believed that the initiative was also
unconstitutional. He asked Mr. Wayne how the initiative got
approved if the initiative was unconstitutional.
4:00:51 PM
DAN WAYNE, Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained that the attorney general's opinion
that accompanied the initiative does not talk about the
constitutionality of the bill other than whether it meets the
single-subject requirement in the constitution. He added that
the same requirement that it applies to bills before the
Legislature was addressed in the document on page 4 that says,
"The bill is not clearly unconstitutional." He specified that
the document did not certify that there were no constitutional
problems with the bill and continued as follows:
They are not required to do that, they are just, I
think, required to say whether or not the bill is
clearly constitutional or not; they said it wasn't
clearly unconstitutional, that's not really the same
thing as saying that the bill is constitutional, and I
don't think that they would disagree that there may be
constitutional issues raised by the initiative.
One of the parts of the initiative that we think might
have constitutionality issues is the prohibiting of
payment of legislative per diem after 121 days.
There's Article 11, Section 7 that says that, "The
initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues or
make or repeal appropriations." If the initiative
passed it could be interpreted as tantamount to
repealing an appropriation, so we think that that is
one constitutional issue; now, that issue isn't
presented by the bill because the bill is an act by
the Legislature, so it's not covered by Article 11,
Section 7 of the constitution, that issue wasn't
raised in my memo of March 21 because that is not an
issue with the bill.
4:04:44 PM
MR. WAYNE continued to address constitutional issues as follows:
The constitutional issues raised in the bill, there's
Article 2, Section 7 of the constitution, it says
that, "Legislators shall receive annual salaries and
they may receive a per diem allowance." If this bill
passed or the initiative passed, either one, and the
Legislature decided not to follow it, the court
probably wouldn't intervene, they would say the
payment of per diem is an internal legislative matter,
it's a legislative prerogative, it's "nonjusticiable."
I say that based on some past holdings of the court,
they cited one of them here on page 4 of my memo.
Another constitutional issue is federal preemption.
The initiative creates something called "foreign
influence corporation" and defines what that is and
says that, "Any foreign influence corporation can't
donate anything to a campaign or spend any money on a
campaign at all." Federal law already prohibits any
foreign national from contributing, donating or
spending funds in connection with federal, state or
local elections either directly or indirectly. A
contribution or expenditure by a foreign-influence
corporation which is defined as one that takes a
certain amount of money from a foreign national might
be the same thing as an indirect expenditure or
contribution by a foreign nationals, it's probably
already covered by federal law and so a state law that
does the same thing might be preempted by the federal
law, especially if it conflicts with the federal law
and that's probably one of the main substantive
differences between the bill, the draft in front of
you today, and the initiative. The initiative doesn't
limit the application of the restrictions on
expenditures and contributions by foreign-influence
corporations, the bill does, it says that in a state
election the prohibition on those expenditures and
contributions only applies if it's allowed by federal
law. So, it tries to reconcile that the state and
federal law says that if there isn't a conflict and
that's why when they drafted it, I added instead of
creating a new law section like the initiative does. I
added the language to existing law that already had
some of that reconciliation language in it to deal
with contributions by foreign nationals. So, it
addresses the same issue which is a concern about
campaign contributions or expenditures by foreign-
influenced corporations, but it addresses it in a
slightly different way and also in a way that takes
care of part of a concern about federal preemption.
4:08:49 PM
MR. WAYNE continued to address constitutional issues as follows:
Under "possible constitutional issues" are listed on
pages 6 and 7 of my memo. The first one was "freedom
of speech in association" because it is a fundamental
right to be able to speak out and to make
contributions and so forth. The court looks really
carefully whether or not the action taken goes too far
in addressing the government's concern. So, as I had
written on page 7, it says that the bill's sections 1
and 2 have to do with spending by foreign-influenced
corporations might go so far that a court would say
that they are not sufficiently narrowly tailored to
the state's interest in protecting its processes of
self-government because it limits all expenditures,
even a penny would be limited. There's also an equal
protection concern; again, the attorney general's
opinion as I've read it doesn't say there are no
constitutional concerns with the initiative, just that
the initiative is not clearly unconstitutional, it's
not a slam dunk in their opinion, so that's why they
recommended certification.
4:10:42 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked Mr. Wayne how a foreign corporation is
defined. He asked if Apple Computer would be considered a
foreign-controlled corporation if people outside of the U.S.
owned 10 percent of its stock. If so, Apple would be prohibited
from giving money to a political action committee (PAC).
MR. WAYNE replied that both HB 44 and the initiative define
"foreign corporations." He conceded that the definition for a
foreign-influenced corporation is long, but in summary, "Any
corporation would be foreign influenced if a foreign national or
foreign owner holds, owns, controls or has direct or indirect
beneficial ownership of equity or voting shares in an amount
equal to or greater than five percent of all corporate voting
shares outstanding or all corporate equity." He continued as
follows:
There are two other ways that something could be a
foreign-influenced corporation also could be, "Two or
more foreign nationals or foreign owners combined,
holds, owns, controls or have direct or indirect
beneficial ownership or equity or voting shares in an
amount equal to or greater than 20 percent of all
corporate voting shares outstanding or all corporate
equity, or a foreign national or foreign owner
participates directly or indirectly in decisions
relating to covered expenditures or contributions;" in
other words, directly or indirectly they are somehow
involved in the deciding whether to or how to spend
money on a campaign. So, it's really a super-broad
definition and one wonders how it could be enforced. I
suppose you could look at every single corporation to
see if they are on the date the contribution was made
if they fit into one of these three possible
categories, it might take some doing, but that's what
the initiative does, and we put it into the bill.
CHAIR MEYER concurred with Mr. Wayne that figuring out who owns
what shares that equated to more than 5 percent would be
difficult. He asked if it was his opinion that inserting the
initiative into HB 44 would be close enough to not need the
initiative on the ballot.
4:14:38 PM
MR. WAYNE answered yes. He explained as follows:
I looked at the three-part test, it was articulated in
Warren v. Boucher, that 1975 case cited in the memo,
and then it is was elaborated on 30 years later in a
2005 case, and it seemed to me like those cases make
it clear that the Legislature has some leeway in what
it can do as long as it stays within certain
boundaries that the court will consider a bill
substantially similar for the purposes of displacing
the initiative from the ballot if it meets that three-
part test and one of the parts that it addresses the
same general concerns that are addressed in the
initiative, and this bill certainly does that; but, it
doesn't have to be addressed in exactly the same way.
I think that a bill going even further afield than
this one does could probably still meet those tests,
this one sticks pretty close. A lot of the differences
are just in style; for example, combining some
language with a current statute instead of creating a
whole new statute, putting the substantive changes,
putting that limitation on how the foreign-influenced
corporation provision would work in order to address
the preemption issue is something that the court would
say, "Well this was, you know, done to address a
constitutional issue and not to frustrate the purpose
of the initiative makers," and that's another thing
that they look for, is the bill just some kind of a
sneak attack on the initiative and I don't think that
a court would say that this bill is a sneak attack on
the initiative, it addresses the same kind of
concerns, does it a little bit differently, I think in
some extent probably does it a little bit better and
so it is substantially the same.
SENATOR WILSON commented that he was not sure why the Department
of Law and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor did not raise
more questions after having Mr. Wayne's review regarding issues
and problems. He said he was concerned and questioned whether he
could provide his support due to the issues he noted.
CHAIR MEYER asked Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar to
address the committee's constitutional questions regarding HB 44
and the initiative.
4:18:07 PM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
& State Affairs Section, Alaska Department of Law, Juneau,
Alaska, commented on HB 44 as follows:
I did author that attorney general opinion on
"17AKGA," the process to determine whether an
initiative is certified as to see whether the
initiative complies with Article 11, Section 7 of the
Alaska Constitution. That means there are four things
we are allowed to look at: whether a bill makes an
appropriation, whether the bill makes local or special
legislation, whether it creates rules of court, and
there is one other that I can't think of off of the
top of my head right now; but, there may very well be
constitutional infirmities with an initiative bill
down the line, the supreme court says we are not
supposed to look at that stuff in advance of
certification. The only things we are allowed to
consider when we certify or don't certify an
initiative is whether Article 11, Section 7 is
violated. So, this initiative bill did not violate any
of that. So, that's the basis of the lieutenant
governor's certification of the ballot measure. So,
it's not that these issues have not been identified or
looked at, it's just that we are not permitted under
case law to deny certification of a ballot measure
that does not present a "Section 7, Article 11"
problem.
4:19:21 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if an initiative is legal until it is
challenged.
SENATOR COGHILL added that he was going to remind Ms. Bakalar
that she was referring to the single-subject rule.
MS. BAKALAR replied as follows:
That's the fifth one, actually. There's a fourth one
that I'm not thinking of, appropriations, local-
special, rules of court, one more that I can't think
of, and the single-subject rule which is the Croft v.
Parnell case, but in any event, it is extremely
limited. There are many initiative bills that raise
potential due process concerns, contract issues,
takings issues, equal protection problems, those are
not things that we are permitted to look at under the
case law when we certify a measure, that's not
appropriate for pre-election review.
CHAIR MEYER said he appreciated Ms. Bakalar's explanation.
4:20:08 PM
SENATOR WILSON commented as follows:
I guess that question would be on the single-subject
in an appropriation that Mr. Wayne has in his memo.
MS. BAKALAR replied as follows:
The single-subject issue was looked at specifically
related to Section 9 of that bill. I'm going from
memory here, Section 9 of the bill was the part that
dealt with campaign finance that was a little bit
divergent from the other sections of the bill. We
concluded that given the broad scope under which the
supreme court reviewed single-subject, that it met the
single-subject requirement. So, that's the one area in
the case law that is developed around what we look at
pre-election and that's the Croft v. Parnell case.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the constitutionality would only be
settled by "taking it to court."
MS. BAKALAR answered as follows:
Yes, other parts of the initiative's constitutionality
would have to be litigated in an as-applied challenge
or perhaps a facial challenge but some form of a
challenge that actually looked at constitutional
issues in the bill post-enactment. Initiatives don't
get the same vetting that legislation does because the
supreme court has said that prior to an election all
we are allowed to look at, all the lieutenant governor
or a municipal clerk, for example, is permitted to
look at is these four or five areas.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked her to address how the "salmon initiative"
is being challenged in court prior to passage.
MS. BAKALAR specified that "17FSH2" was denied certification by
the lieutenant governor as follows:
It is our position that that ballot measure
unconstitutionally violates the appropriations
restriction in Article 11, Section 7; so, it does
violate one of the four core restrictions of
enactments by initiative. The constitution says that
an initiative cannot make an appropriation, make or
repeal an appropriation, we think "17FSH2" does do
that. We recommended against certifying the measure,
that was litigated, a trial-court judge ruled in the
sponsor's favor and now the state appealed.
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Coghill may have a question. He
asked if he wanted to wait until the bill is heard in the
Senator Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes.
CHAIR MEYER thanked Ms. Bakalar for her testimony. He stated
that he had learned a lot in the committee meeting. He asked Mr.
Johnston if he had any feedback from Representative Grenn
regarding combining the initiative into HB 44
4:23:12 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, replied as follows:
Representative Grenn has been trying to work to get
into communication with the other members, trying to
get a consensus. Again, he's been very busy, and he
apologizes for the delay. In my capacity to speak for
him, he thinks this is a good avenue to go forward
with since the chair brought the motion forward, but
he hasn't heard back from the initiative yet.
CHAIR MEYER asked who the other two sponsors of the initiative
are.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that he did not know.
CHAIR MEYER stated that he thought the other two sponsors are
Bonnie Jack and Representative Kreiss-Tompkins.
MR. JOHNSTON answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER summarized that the committee had taken public
testimony. He inquired if HB 44 had fiscal notes.
4:24:49 PM
At ease.
4:26:15 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and commented as
follows:
The fiscal notes will be forthcoming with the new CS,
but it's similar to the original HB 44 which had zero
fiscal notes. Since we have modified this bill
somewhat, there will also have to be a title change
resolution.
4:26:42 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SCS CSSSHB 44(STA), version 30-
LS0208\N from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note.
She also made a motion to adopt the forthcoming title change
resolution. [Title change resolution SCR 19 was read the first
time on 3/29/18 and held on the Secretarys desk until it was
taken up on final passage on 5/8/18.]
CHAIR MEYER announced that without objection, SCS CSHB 44(STA)
and forthcoming title change resolution was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
4:27:49 PM
At ease.
SB 186-VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
4:30:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and announced the
consideration of Senate Bill 186 (SB 186). He noted that at the
previous meeting the committee adopted an amendment from Senator
Coghill which made the bill an opt-in rather than an opt-out. He
said his office has come back with a committee substitute (CS).
4:30:37 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the CS for SB 186, version 30-
GS2097\D as the working document.
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
4:31:02 PM
CHRITINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that version D
incorporates the amendment that Senator Coghill offered in the
previous meeting into the bill. She noted that at the same
meeting there had been a second amendment that was a technical
amendment to the bill, but the amendment needed to be reworked
considering the changes that Senator Coghill's amendment made to
the original bill. She said the CS makes the voting option opt-
in versus an opt-out.
CHAIR MEYER asked if there was an amendment from the Division of
Elections that was included or is forth coming.
MR. MARASIGAN replied that there was a revised amendment.
CHAIR MEYER removed his objection to the CS and announced that
the CS, version D, was adopted.
4:32:34 PM
JOSE BAHNKE, Director, Alaska Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, Juneau, Alaska, announced her
availability to address the division's amendment for SB 186.
4:32:49 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved Amendment 1 dated March 26, 2018.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 186(STA)
Page 2, line 16, following "treat":
Delete "an eligible"
Insert "a"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "registration of the applicant's
registration status"
Insert "voter registration"
Page 3, line 23, following "(9)":
Insert "under the procedures established by the
director of the division of elections under AS
15.07.070(k)"
4:33:02 PM
SENATOR COGHILL objected to review the amendment.
4:33:07 PM
At ease.
4:33:35 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order.
MS. BAHNKE specified that the amendment makes three technical
changes. She noted that the first change made on page 2, line
16, "an eligible" to "a" was done because the division does not
know if a person is eligible at the time, they apply for the
permanent fund dividend (PFD).
She explained that the second technical change on page 2, line
26, was made because of Senator Coghill's amendment to provide
conformity by adding reference to the PFD statute and clarity
relating to voter registration.
She said the third technical change on page 3, line 23, allows
the division director to adopt regulations.
CHAIR MEYER asked if committee members had questions for Ms.
Bahnke regarding Amendment 1.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he had no objection.
SENATOR MEYER asked if the CS will reduce the division's
workload related to sending out cards.
4:36:15 PM
MS. BAHNKE explained that the intent for the bill was threefold:
make necessary legal changes to enhance efficiency, harmonize
the interaction between the division and the Permanent Fund
Division, and reduce expenditures by avoiding the opt-out mailer
from the PFD registration process. She summarized that the
amendment will make the harmonizing changes and enhance
efficiency, but mailing will still be required as part of the
division's work.
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed the third paragraph of the third
fiscal note and pointed out the sentence, "Reoccurring costs of
$360,000 will be needed to hire temporary workers to process
notices." She asked if the division is willing to absorb the
cost.
MS. BAHNKE answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER removed his objection and announced that Amendment 1
is adopted.
4:38:19 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report CSSB 186(STA), version 30-
GS2097\D as amended from committee with individual
recommendations and pending zero fiscal notes.
4:38:33 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
4:38:47 PM
At ease.
HB 138-MARCH: SOBRIETY AWARENESS MONTH
4:39:56 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and announced the
consideration of House Bill 138 (HB 138).
4:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 138, provided an overview of the bill as
follows:
HB 138 permanently designates March as Sobriety
Awareness Month. Sobriety Awareness Month recognizes
and celebrates Alaskans who choose to live a sober
lifestyle and provides an opportunity for Alaskans to
promote sobriety through activities and celebrations
throughout the state.
This bill is not a new idea and the concept behind it
is not a new idea. In the 1980s and 1990s, native
Alaskan and rural communities recognized the negative
impact that alcohol and drug abuse had in their lives,
so they sought to help solve the problem by
highlighting models of sobriety in their communities.
This movement escalated in 1992 when the first "Idita
Pledge" event was undertaken by Akiak musher Mike
Williams who was a musher participating in the
Iditarod and he carried signatures of Alaskans who
pledged to live a sober lifestyle with him along the
Iditarod. In 1995 the Legislature adopted this idea
for the first time declaring its first sobriety
awareness month, but really the whole concept was
built in the Alaskan native community and has been
carried by the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) for
many years. In 1996 there was a big push around
Sobriety Awareness Month and the Alaska Legislature
amended the Uniform Alcoholism and Treatment Act to
reaffirm the state's commitment to sobriety by
recognizing that it's the policy of the state to
recognize, appreciate and reinforce the example set by
its citizens who lead in, believe in, and support a
life of sobriety. Sobriety Awareness Month continued
to live on as sort of an annual activity of the
Legislature until 2006; however, sobriety remains a
really important topic in the state as alcoholism and
drug addiction continue to plague us in many ways.
Last year the McDowell Group reported through a study
that found that the economic cost to the state in 2015
for alcohol and drug abuse was about $3 billion,
that's pretty significant and we of course have had a
lot of conversations recently in light of your crime
problem and the opioid epidemic about the challenge
with addiction that we continue to suffer from in the
State of Alaska. I would argue that even in spite of
the scope and the growth of the opioid epidemic,
alcohol is still the number-one drug of choice of most
Alaskans and remains probably our number-one problem.
Many of you may know that I made a personal choice
about 15-and-a-half years ago to become sober and have
raised my family with a sober mom and really proud of
that. I think that as a public person it's important
to use my position to help educate people about the
doors that sobriety can open to one if you allow
yourself to walk through and that in fact it can be
far from a burden but in fact can be quite liberating.
So, I'm pleased to be able to present this concept to
you.
4:44:10 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented that his mind goes to the times of
year where alcohol consumption seems to "rev up." For example,
the holiday seasons like the Fourth of July, Christmas and New
Year's. He asked if she did a study on the placement of the
Sobriety Awareness Month to get more public attention.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ answered that choosing March was
founded on tradition. She explained that the tradition
originally came from the "Idita Pledge." She opined that the
sobriety message might be missed during the holidays when many
activities occur. She said the decision was to stick with
tradition and pick March for the Sobriety Awareness Month. She
disclosed that she inherited the bill from a former House
representative and decided to take the concept and run with it.
4:45:51 PM
TASHA ELIZARDE, Staff, Representative Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that HB 138 establishes
March as "Sobriety Awareness Month" in the state.
She said Section 1 clarifies in codified law that the State of
Alaska recognizes the importance of sobriety in the state.
Section 2 adds a section to AS 44.12.150, designating March as
Sobriety Awareness Month that allows schools, community groups,
public and private agencies, other organizations, and
individuals who are invested in the cause of sobriety to
celebrate with activities.
CHAIR MEYER commented that there seems to be a lot of bills for
awareness months and days. He agreed that establishing March as
Sobriety Awareness Month is important and appreciated
Representative Spohnholz for bringing the legislation forward.
SENATOR GIESSEL stated that she appreciated March as the chosen
month because March is the month of the Iditarod where the race
goes through many rural villages. She said sobriety is a topic
that could be spotlighted by the Iditarod's platform where
everyone, even outside the state follows.
CHAIR MEYER noted that the intent is to make the designation in
statute rather than a resolution that is brought up annually to
serve as a reminder versus passing a bill and forgetting about
it. He pointed out that Representative Spohnholz has chosen to
dedicate her life to encourage people who need to be sober.
4:48:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that she inherited the bill
and concurred that the intent is to designate the legislation
into law, a philosophy that she agreed with. She opined that the
sobriety message from advocates and community members should be
focused on Alaskans rather than educating legislators. She
asserted that Alaskans need to hear the message that sobriety is
a positive and powerful choice that can lead to a vibrant life.
She emphasized that the sobriety choice does not move a person
away from fun, self-realization and great relationships;
however, sobriety moves an individual towards those things. She
asserted that the bill will provide advocates with an
opportunity to move away from legislators and focus on building
a community of support around the sobriety topic, something that
she believes is a good use of their precious time as a resource.
4:49:53 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:50:18 PM
KIM ZELLO, Advocate, Fallen Up Ministries, Palmer, Alaska,
testified in support of HB 138. She explained that Fallen Up
Ministries is a nonprofit that advocates for those who have
addictions, seek sobriety and need peer support or transitional-
living services. She set forth that HB 138 will give notice to
the state and nation that Alaska recognizes important issues
that have affected residents like addiction and sobriety.
4:52:10 PM
JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN),
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HB 138. She disclosed
that AFN historically has been very involved in the sobriety
movement. She said making a permanent month dedication to
sobriety would be very constructive. She explained that AFN's
work in supporting the sobriety movement over the years has
shown to change the stigma of people, attitudes and lives. She
emphasized that the legislation is not the end-all for
everything but will be positive and will make a difference.
CHAIR MEYER thanked AFN for their resolution.
MS. KITKA explained that the resolution was from the AFN
convention.
4:55:16 PM
TIFFANY HALL, Executive Director, Recover Alaska, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 138. She disclosed that
Recover Alaska is a multi-sector action group working to reduce
excessive alcohol use and harm throughout Alaska. She asserted
that Recover Alaska's vision is for Alaskans to live free from
the consequences of alcohol misuse and to empower individuals to
achieve their full potential.
She stated that Recover Alaska wants to correct the falsehood
that addiction is a moral failing and emphasize that addiction
is a chronic disease. She remarked that Alaska has a pervasive
drinking culture and noted statistics connected to alcohol where
the state is at the top in terms of sexual assault, domestic
violence, child abuse, and suicide. She pointed out that the
state's alcohol mortality rate is over twice as high as the rest
of the nation and six-times higher with the Alaska native
population.
She thanked AFN's sobriety movement for initiating March for
sobriety as well as their year-round involvement in promoting
healthy, sober lifestyles. She thanked Representative Spohnholz
for taking up HB 138 and for serving as a strong and positive
role model of what a full, healthy, sober life can look like.
5:00:12 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
5:00:47 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report HB 138, version 30-LS0488\D from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
5:01:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
5:01:13 PM
At ease.
SB 210-SEAFOOD MISREPRESENTATION ON MENUS
5:02:35 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and announced the
consideration of Senate Bill 210 (SB 210).
5:03:09 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 210, provided an overview as follows:
This bill adds a civil penalty for misrepresentation
of seafood at a retail food establishment. There has
been quite a bit of research across the country about
seafood mislabeling.
In 2105, Oceana, which is a nonprofit organization,
collected 82 salmon samples from restaurants and
grocery stores and DNA sampling found that 43 percent
was mislabeled, and diners were 5 times more likely to
be mislead in restaurants than grocer stores.
In 2013 another Oceana study of 1,200 samples across
the U.S. found that 52 percent of the samples in
certain parts of the country were mislabeled, of 120
samples of fish claimed to be red snapper, only 7 were
red snapper.
In 2011 the Boston Globe tested fish at 123
Massachusetts restaurants, nearly half were
mislabeled.
In 2016 Oceana tested 25,000 seafood samples across
the world and found the 1 in 5 were mislabeled, and
that 58 percent of the substitute species carried
health risks, often parasites and toxins.
The University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA)
conducted a study of 26 Los Angeles sushi restaurants
from 2012 to 2015 and found that 47 percent of the
sushi was mislabeled.
We don't have Alaska-specific data, but I can relate a
personal experience of being wrongly served at a
restaurant mislabeled seafood and they knowingly told
me it was something wrong.
We have a letter of support from the United Fishermen
of Alaska. This bill is aimed at protecting consumers
and the state's seafood industry, an industry that
employs tens of thousands of people and has an
economic output of around $5 billion.
5:05:31 PM
CHAIR MEYER opined that the most common mislabeling occurrence
happens in restaurants both in Alaska and outside of the state
where they say, "this is Alaska wild salmon," and you don't
agree, the same goes for king crab, etcetera. He remarked that
mislabeling can have a serious detrimental effect on the state's
economy and the fishing industry.
SENATOR WILSON asked Senator Wielechowski to address the
enforcement piece in the bill. He asked if the bill is for
people to file a complaint before fines are enacted or will the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) go around
doing random testing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that he does not believe DEC will
be enforcing outside of what they normally do because the
department does not have the resources to sample; however, a
provision was included in the bill that allows employees of
retail establishments to report anonymously without retaliation.
He opined that employees are in the best position to report
mislabeling and then DEC can decide whether to act.
CHAIR MEYER noted that a representative from DEC was available
to answer committee members' questions.
5:07:28 PM
NATE GRAHAM, Staff, Senator Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the following sectional
analysis of SB 210:
Section 1(a):
States that a retail food establishment, which a
restaurant or sushi bar, may not misrepresent a menu
item or the identity or the origin of the seafood or
seafood ingredient.
Section 1(b) and 1(c):
Allow an employee to report a violation as well as
protects the employee from retaliation.
Section 1(d):
Provides an exception if a retail food establishment
informs a consumer that they are substituting
something on the menu that they are not violating
this. It also allows if a customer does complain and
there's been a misrepresentation that the restaurant
or industry could provide the customer with a full
refund and that would prevent DEC from needing to take
action on this.
Section 1(e):
Establishes a fine of up to $500 for each fine, but
not to exceed $50,000 in total fines.
Section 1(f):
Defines "menu" and "seafood."
Sections 2 and 3:
Section 2 takes two definitions that were previously
under AS 17.20.049 (b)(3) and (b)(4) and moves them to
AS 17.20.075; it says in the bill that they are
repealed but they are just being moved.
CHAIR MEYER addressed employer retaliation in Section 1(c) where
an employer cannot directly or indirectly dismiss, layoff,
suspend, etcetera. He asked what would happen if someone laid
off or fired an employee.
5:10:07 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that an employee potentially could
have other claims, but they would be completely independent of
the statutes. He said all that would statutorily exist for
dismissing an employee would be the $500 fine.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to address "verbal warning," noted on
top of page 2. He noted that he has read menus where a
restaurant puts on the menu, "May be substituted by." He asked
if the bill allows for the substitution admission on menus.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that "verbally warns customer" is
noted in the bill so the substitutions noted on a menu would be
prohibited. He said he was open to discussion to change what
Senator Coghill addressed.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that he was just wondering because he
has seen the substitution admission and avoids the noted items
in restaurants
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that the bill does say
"verbally."
SENATOR COGHILL responded that he would watch that provision.
5:12:01 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed Senator Coghill's point and opined
that misrepresentation might be taken care of in Section 1(a),
"A retail food establishment may not misrepresent on a menu the
identity or origin of a seafood or seafood ingredient in a
prepared food product."
SENATOR COGHILL clarified that he intended to say would there
still be a requirement for a verbal warning. He noted that he
would address Section 1(e) regarding violations and fines with
Senator Wielechowski in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that there is another section that
deals with misleading labeling or advertisement that is within
the section that Senator Coghill referenced.
5:13:52 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened and closed public testimony.
5:14:07 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SB 210, version 30-LS1413\D from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
5:14:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
5:15:00 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 5:15 p.m.