05/06/2021 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB108 | |
| SB109 | |
| SB82 | |
| SB1 | |
| SB4 | |
| SB115 | |
| SB83 | |
| HB3 | |
| SJR12 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB117 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 6, 2021
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair (via Teams)
Senator Mia Costello (via Teams)
Senator Roger Holland (via Teams)
Senator Scott Kawasaki (via Teams)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 109
"An Act renaming the Alaska Native Language Preservation and
Advisory Council as the Council for Alaska Native Languages; and
relating to the Council for Alaska Native Languages."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 1
"An Act prohibiting the use of chokeholds by peace officers; and
relating to justification of use of force by peace officers."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to justification of use of force by a peace
officer; and relating to shooting at a moving vehicle."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to confidentiality of information; relating to
the duties of the Department of Administration; creating an
address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to elections; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3(JUD)
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- MOVED CSHB 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Urging the United States Congress to repeal the Windfall
Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset of the
Social Security Act.
- MOVED SJR 12 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the detention of minors; relating to
minors subject to adult courts; relating to the placement of
minors in adult correctional facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 91(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 117
"An Act relating to the state procurement code; establishing the
construction manager general contractor procurement method; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 117 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 108
SHORT TITLE: STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
03/19/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/21 (S) STA, CRA
04/29/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/29/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 109
SHORT TITLE: COUNCIL FOR ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
03/19/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/21 (S) STA, FIN
04/29/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/29/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
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
04/12/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/23/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/26/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/21 (S) Moved CSSB 82(JUD) Out of Committee
04/26/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/21 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2NR 1AM SAME TITLE
04/28/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, MYERS
04/28/21 (S) NR: HUGHES, SHOWER
04/28/21 (S) AM: KIEHL
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 1
SHORT TITLE: CHOKEHOLD BAN
SPONSOR(s): GRAY-JACKSON
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) STA, JUD
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 4
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT PEACE OFF. SHOOT MOVING VEHICLE
SPONSOR(s): GRAY-JACKSON
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) STA, JUD
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 115
SHORT TITLE: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): KIEHL
03/31/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 83
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS; VOTING; BALLOT REQS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/12/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/21 (S) STA, FIN
03/02/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/02/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/11/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/11/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
SPONSOR(s): JOHNSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 5AM
03/08/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/08/21 (H) NR: TARR
03/08/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, VANCE,
KAUFMAN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
03/17/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2AM
03/20/21 (H) DP: VANCE, DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS,
SNYDER, CLAMAN
03/20/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN, KURKA
04/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 3(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/26/21 (S) MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLICATION NOTICE,
RULE 23 FAILED Y12 N7 E1
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SJR 12
SHORT TITLE: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT REDUCTION REPEAL
SPONSOR(s): WIELECHOWSKI
03/29/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/21 (S) STA, FIN
04/27/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/27/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 91
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION OF MINORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/21 (S) HSS, STA
03/09/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
04/06/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/21 (S) Moved CSSB 91(HSS) Out of Committee
04/06/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
04/07/21 (S) HSS RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/07/21 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH
04/07/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD
04/27/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/27/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 117
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT; CONSTRUCTION; CONTRACTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/31/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (S) STA, TRA
04/27/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/27/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 108.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 108.
NATASHA SINGH, General Counsel
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint on SB 108.
JOY ANDERSON, General Counsel
Association of Village Council Presidents
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint on SB 108.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 109.
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint to introduce SB 82.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the introduction of SB 82
MORGAN LIM
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to both SB 82 and SB
83.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 1.
BESSE ODOM, Staff
Senator Gray-Jackson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 1 on
behalf of the sponsor.
PETER MLYNARIK, Board Member
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 1.
MARK PEARSON, President
Alaska Peace Officers Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 1 on behalf of
APOA.
KATIE BOTZ, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 1.
MORGAN LIM
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 1 and SB 4.
CEYLON MICHELL, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 1.
DANIEL POTTER, representing self
Mat-Su Valley, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 1.
RON VIGIL, Anchorage Chapter President
Alaska Peace officers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 1.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 4.
KEITH BAUGUESS, Staff
Senator Gray-Jackson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 4.
PETER MLYNARIK, Board Member
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised concerns about SB 4.
MARK PEARSON, President
Alaska Peace Officers Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 4.
RON VIGIL, Anchorage Chapter President
Alaska Peace officers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with SB 4.
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 115.
EDRIC CARRILLO, Staff
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 115
on behalf of the sponsor.
MATTHEW DUBOIS, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 115.
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 3.
ERIC CORDERO, Staff
Representative DeLana Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about HB 3.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 3, provided
information about the recent attack on the Court System
database.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 12.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the amendment to SB 91.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:08 PM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kawasaki (via Teams), Costello (via Teams),
Reinbold (via Teams), and Chair Shower.
CHAIR SHOWER reviewed the remote meeting protocols, including
the roll call to show the presence and location of the committee
member.
Roll call: SENATOR REINBOLD, Capitol room 427, SENATOR COSTELLO,
Capitol room 119, SENATOR KAWASAKI, Capitol room 7, and CHAIR
SHOWER in the Butrovich room, Capitol 205.
SB 108-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
3:36:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act providing for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes; and providing for an effective date."
3:36:37 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 108, stated that this legislation proposes to
formally recognize the tribes in Alaska, which are already
recognized by the federal government and listed in the Federally
Recognized Tribal List Act of 1994. He highlighted that the
Alaska Supreme Court and the executive branch already have
recognized tribes in Alaska. In the 1999 Baker v. John case, the
Alaska Supreme Court made this the law of the state and in 2017
the Alaska attorney general issued a memo outlining tribal
recognition.
SENATOR OLSON stated that the intent of SB 108 is to reconcile
the government of Alaska with its First Peoples and declaring
this formal state policy is the first step into the future with
tribes as partners rather than adversaries.
SENATOR OLSON stated that SB 108 does not expand the current
rights of established tribes, it does not obligate any more
state resources to tribes, and it does not diminish the state's
ability to manage its public resources. SB 108 simply dignifies
the tribal citizens of Alaska by recognizing them as tribal
people.
3:39:04 PM
At ease
3:40:10 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
3:40:31 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, advised that while SB 108 has just
three operative sentences, it has some large concepts to
consider. He reviewed the supporting materials in members'
packets starting with President Nixon's 1970 special address on
Indian affairs, which he said is still the most succinct and
insightful statement of the federal Indian policy of self-
determination. The Baker v. John case that the sponsor
referenced, was a landmark moment when the Alaska Supreme Court
determined the existence and recognition of federally recognized
tribes in the state. He noted that former Attorney General Jahna
Lindemuth's exposition of tribes in Alaska was also in the
packets.
MR. TRUITT spoke to the sponsor statement for SB 108 that read
as follows:
Senate Bill 108 proposes to formally recognize the
tribes in this state and the peoples who governed
themselves for multiple millennia before statehood.
The federal government has a special and unique
relationship with tribes that through this bill the
state would acknowledge.
Alaska obtained statehood during the era of federal
Indian policy where the federal government sought to
terminate its trust relationship with its tribal
people and force them to abandon their tribal
identity, cultures, languages, and ways of life. While
the federal government embraced needed change and went
on to pass the Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act in 1975, Alaska's state constitution,
and state policy, are still relics of the painful
past. We have clung to this policy to our collective
peril as all the peoples of this state have suffered
because of it.
Many of the struggles facing Alaska today, from the
public safety crisis, suicide, the epidemic of sexual
assault and domestic violence have only been
reinforced by the state's policy of telling its tribal
peoples that their form of government has no
existence, no standing, and no recognition.
It is time to stop this policy and break from the past
and usher in a new era that seeks to reconcile all the
state's peoples one to another.
Senate Bill 108 serves as a first step, by making it
the formal state policy that the state's indigenous
peoples have their own governments and that the
government of the state of Alaska will no longer deny
their existence. This provides for not only formal
recognition in our statutes, but a roadmap for
healing, wholeness, and restoration of all Alaska's
people and communities.
3:43:22 PM
R. TRUITT emphasized that this legislation is still needed,
despite the Supreme Court's declaration of the law in the state,
because it is the legislature's role to establish and declare
the official policy of the state. It is not the governor's role
to declare state policy, despite former Governor Hickel's
statement that Alaska was one people and did not have tribes.
While that might have been what the governor felt, Mr. Truitt
said it was not the governor's role to declare state policy.
Making state policy is the legislature's role and that is part
of the reasoning behind the formal recognition of tribes in
statute.
3:45:55 PM
MR. TRUITT explained that SB 108 declares the end of termination
era thinking as the official state policy, which is a step
toward aligning with the federal Indian policy of self
determination. What self determination looks like on the state
level will take some conversation, he said, but it needs to
start by acknowledging that tribes not only exist in Alaska, but
they are also properly here. He posited that this session
underscores that point given that the legislature received its
vaccinations from the tribal health provider for this region.
3:47:35 PM
MR. TRUITT presented the following sectional analysis for SB
108:
Section 1 contains legislative findings and intent that will be
uncodified. This was added to the bill that was introduced in
the previous legislature.
Section 2. This is a technical change and could have
been included in a revisor's bill. In 2016,
provisions from chapter 14 of title 25 of the United
States Code were reorganized. As a result, the
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994
received a different section number in the U.S. Code.
The operative provision of this bill in Section 4 of
the bill references this act. The proposed new
statute in Section 4 cross references AS 23.20.520 and
so Legislative Legal is suggesting that the new
section number in the U.S. Code be updated in this
statute.
Sections 3 and 4. Sections 3 and 4 are technical
changes. The proposed new statute of this bill was
deemed to be codified in AS 44.03 by Legislative
Legal. This chapter of title 44 contains only four
statutes that deal with state ownership and
jurisdiction of offshore water and submerged lands and
rules of statutory construction for the chapter.
Because the proposed new statute of this bill is a
completely different concept than the existing
statutes within AS 44.03, clarifying language was
inserted to accommodate the proposed new statute
within this chapter.
Section 5. This section contains the proposed new
statute which acknowledges the unique status tribes
have with the federal government and makes it the
states official policy that the state recognizes the
federally recognized tribes within the state of
Alaska. The list of federally recognized tribes is
codified in the U.S. Code and this statute references
that act. This section makes clear that this
recognition is in no way intended to affect the
federal trust responsibility the U.S. Government
extends to tribes nor is it an attempt to create a
state trust responsibility to tribes.
Section 6 is the effective date.
3:51:17 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor how he would respond to those who
feel this legislation would infringe on state rights.
3:52:53 PM
SENATOR OLSON replied the intent is not to cause conflict
between state rights and tribal rights. He deferred further
comment to Mr. Truitt
MR. TRUITT offered an historical perspective. He explained that
one reason the framers of the U.S. Constitution replaced the
Articles of Confederation was because it granted supreme rights
to each of the colonies, including the issue of Indian affairs.
Because there was no uniformity among the 13 colonies as to how
to work with the tribes, the framers of the constitution wrote
the Indian Commerce Clause. The colonies relinquished their
exclusive control over Indian affairs and made it a federal
question, which it has been to this day.
He confirmed the sponsor's statement that SB 108 does not expand
any rights that tribes have now by virtue of their recognized
status.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that this will be well debated because of
the strong feelings on the issue. He opined that it was past
time for the discussion.
3:56:03 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI thanked the sponsor and expressed appreciation
for the history lesson from Mr. Truitt.
3:56:54 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked the sponsor if Alaska Native history is
required in public schools.
3:57:31 PM
SENATOR OLSON replied he was not aware of that requirement and
the bill has nothing to do with any curriculum the state may
require.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she just wondered if tribal issues were
discussed in the curriculum at any time.
SENATOR OLSON restated his previous answer and said he was not
aware of any discussion about curriculum.
3:59:51 PM
NATASHA SINGH, General Counsel, Tanana Chiefs Conference (Tanana
Chiefs), Fairbanks, Alaska, co-delivered a presentation titled
Recognition of Alaska Tribes. She stated that Tanana Chiefs
represents 37 federally recognized tribes, and she was co-
presenting with Joy Anderson, general counsel for the
Association of Village Council Presidents that represents 56
federally recognized tribes. She began the presentation by
paraphrasing the text on slide 2 that read as follows:
Native peoples and Tribes have existed in the Americas
from time immemorial.
"Before the coming of the Europeans, the tribes were
self-governing sovereign political communities."
-John v. Baker, Alaska Supreme Court
4:01:55 PM
JOY ANDERSON, General Counsel, Association of Village Council
Presidents, Bethel, Alaska, co-delivered the presentation titled
Recognition of Alaska Tribes. She explained that tribes are
domestic dependent nations, which is the legal term for all
federally recognized tribes, including those in Alaska. They are
sovereign governments that are subject only to the authority of
the United States. She suggested the members read the list on
slide 3 that describes the characteristics of tribes. The slide
read as follows:
xrhombus Inherent powers and authorities with self-governance
of internal affairs e.g. type of government; tribal
membership
xrhombus Tribes exercise all powers, unless those powers have
been expressly limited by Congress
xrhombus Regulate matters pertaining to tribal members, e.g.
taxes, property, members' conduct
xrhombus Immune from lawsuits
xrhombus Tribes are not state or local governments; political
subdivisions or agencies or instrumentalities of the
federal or state governments; tax exempt organizations
4:02:54 PM
MS. ANDERSON said the name of the bill is very important because
it recognizes that tribes are already in Alaska. It does not
create tribes or expand any powers.
4:03:10 PM
MS. SINGH briefly reviewed the history of tribes since Columbus
arrived in the Americas and emphasized the point that tribes
have rights and a relationship with the federal government with
or without SB 108 and recognition by the legislature. She
directed attention to the timeline on slide 5 that identifies
the progression of the federal Indian policy periods, starting
with the 1492-1820 Colonial Era where tribes were specifically
referenced in the constitution. The subsequent federal Indian
policy periods were the removal/relocation era from 1820-1850;
the reservation/treaty making era from 1850-1887; the allotment
& assimilation era from 1887-1934; the Indian self-government
era from 1934-1953; the termination era from 1953-1960s and the
self determination era from 1960s-present. She noted the
committee's time constraints and said she would not detail each
policy period
MS. SINGH related that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
was negotiated and signed at the end of the termination policy
period, which was followed by the self determination policy that
was championed by President Nixon. She said the point is that
the current policy is the only successful federal Indian policy
in the history of the relationship between tribes and the
federal government.
4:04:47 PM
MS. ANDERSON reviewed slides 6-8. She stated that in 1831, the
Marshall court issued a trilogy of decisions that established
the principles that are the foundation for the relationship
between tribes and the federal government. She noted that one of
the decisions established the definition of "Domestic Dependent
Nation." She directed attention to slide 7 that encapsulates the
three cases: Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,
and Worcester v. Georgia. The slide read as follow:
4:05:33 PM
xrhombus Aboriginal land claims: Aboriginal people retain
the rights of use and occupancy, that only the
United States government can settle aboriginal
land claims, and that the U.S. has a legal duty
to protect aboriginal title until land claims are
officially settled.
xrhombus Tribal Authority: Tribes are nations with the
authority to govern themselves. The source of
their authority to govern is "inherent," meaning
that it comes from tribes being self-governing
long before explorers and settlers came to the
Americas.
xrhombus Federal Trust Responsibility: The federal
government has a responsibility to protect Indian
lands and resources, and to provide essential
services to Indian people. This comes from the
fact that the federal government took away the
vast majority of Indian lands, and in return
promised to provide these things.
4:06:13 PM
MS. ANDERSON stated that in 1867 Russia sold the United States
its claim to Alaska through the Treaty of Cession, which
included the following statement:
The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and
regulations as the United States may, from time to time,
adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.
It is an example of the way that colonialism treated indigenous
people as inferior, but it is also clear evidence that tribes
existed in Alaska. The treaty recognized that Russia had
exercised power over tribes in Alaska and it ceded that power to
the United States.
4:07:08 PM
MS. SINGH emphasized that the United States recognizes tribes
because it is in the constitution. She described that point and
the success of the current self-determination policy as
important takeaways. That policy has had bipartisan support for
four decades and it has worked to improve Native communities.
The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 was a major piece of
legislation that allows tribes to identify services the
government is obligated to provide and contract for those
services through either the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the
Indian Health Service. Tribes are doing that in Alaska and that
is why the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine was so successful in
Alaska's tribal communities.
4:08:41 PM
MS. SINGH directed attention to the bulleted points of Executive
Order 13175 of 2000. It read as follows:
xrhombus Established regular and meaningful consultation
and collaboration with tribes in the development
of federal policies that have tribal
implications.
xrhombus Recognizes that the United States has a unique
legal relationship with Indian tribal governments
as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, treaties,
statutes, Executive Orders, and U.S. Supreme
Court decisions.
xrhombus Confirms that the U.S. recognizes Indian tribes
as "domestic dependent nations under its
protection."
xrhombus Recognizes a trust relationship with Indian
tribes.
xrhombus Recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-
government, tribal authority and self-
determination.
xrhombus All federal agencies are to respect Indian tribal
self-government and authority.
MS SINGH restated that Alaska tribes have had a relationship
with the federal government and will continue to have a
relationship with or without passage of SB 108.
4:09:40 PM
MS. SINGH credited Mr. Truitt with giving a brief history of the
earlier position of the executive branch in Alaska, which was
that tribes did not exist. She said the cases cited on slide 14
demonstrate that part of the termination era was an effective
shift to eliminate tribes in Alaska. However, history
demonstrates that only Congress has that power; the State of
Alaska is unable to do that. Slide 14 cited the following cases:
xrhombus Native Village of Stevens v. Alaska Management &
Planning (Alaska 1988)-"There are not now and
never have been tribes of Indians in Alaska as
that term is used in federal Indian Law."
xrhombus Alaska Administrative Order No. 125 (1991)-"State
of Alaska opposes expansion of tribal
governmental powers and the creation of 'Indian
Country' in Alaska."
She highlighted that these cases were overturned and reversed as
lawmakers became educated about federal Indian law.
4:10:54 PM
MS. ANDERSON reviewed the federal government responses to the
cases cited on slide 14, starting in 1993 with the Department of
Interior (DOI) Sansonetti Opinion. It controverted the Alaska
Supreme Court analyses, observing that the federal government
had recognized tribes in Alaska for many years and treated them
as such. She reported that DOI issued a list of federally
recognized tribes in Alaska nine months later. Then in 1994,
Congress required the lists of recognized tribes, including
those in Alaska, to be published annually. That was the List Act
and all versions since 1994 have included the federally
recognized tribes in Alaska.
4:11:54 PM
MS. ANDERSON reviewed the current position of the State of
Alaska as to the recognition of tribes that is outlined on slide
16. She said the state's position has shifted over the last
several decades. Baker v. John was a landmark case where the
Alaska Supreme Court reversed itself on the Stevens decision and
recognized the existence and sovereignty of tribes and some of
the powers they exercise. In 2018, an Alaska Administrative
Order by Governor Walker recognized tribes by stating that there
was a need to improve government to government relations with
Alaska tribes. She said that was preceded by the 2017 Department
of Law opinion that, "[T]here are no unresolved legal questions
regarding the legal status of Alaska Tribes as federally
recognized tribal governments."
MS. ANDERSON read the important points about SB 108 that were
bulleted on slide 17, which read as follows:
xrhombus Will bring the Alaska State Legislature in line
with the other two branches of state government
regarding the status of Alaska tribes.
xrhombus Will modernize the policy towards Alaska Native
tribes by officially moving the state legislature
out of the Termination Era and into the Self-
Determination Era.
xrhombus Create the potential for the State of Alaska to
lead the country in creation of state-tribal
relations.
4:13:40 PM
MS. SINGH concluded the presentation stating that should SB 108
pass, it will be a first step in developing a formal
relationship between the State of Alaska and its 230 tribes. "We
can determine together what that relationship should become and
how we should learn from the federal self-determination policy."
SB 108 presents a great opportunity, she said.
4:14:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER thanked the presenters and apologized for rushing
the presentation due to the eight additional bills on the
schedule. He said he looked forward to debating some of the
questions.
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 108 in committee.
SB 109-COUNCIL FOR ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGES
4:15:33 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 109
"An Act renaming the Alaska Native Language Preservation and
Advisory Council as the Council for Alaska Native Languages; and
relating to the Council for Alaska Native Languages."
4:15:44 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 109, introduced the legislation paraphrasing the
following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 109 reflects a request from the Alaska
Native Language Preservation and Advisory Council to
change its name to the "Council for Alaska Native
Languages." This change would shorten the Council's
name while emphasizing the Council's broader focus,
which includes more than just language preservation.
In fact, the statute establishing the Council, AS
44.33.520, states the purpose of the Council is to
recommend "the establishment or reorganization of
programs to support the preservation, restoration, and
revitalization of Alaska Native languages."
The Council also requests an increase in membership
from 5 to 7 members in recognition of the diversity of
Alaska Native languages in the state (there are at
least 20 Native languages in Alaska). This allows for
greater language representation on the Council and
increases the involvement of a great number of native
language speakers from different regions of the state.
4:17:27 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 109 in committee for future consideration.
SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
4:18:13 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."
[CSSB 82(JUD), work order 32-GS1645\I, was the working document
although references are to the work draft version B that the
Judiciary Committee amended then passed from committee.]
4:18:52 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department
of Law, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the administration,
presented a PowerPoint to introduce SB 82. She stated that the
purpose of SB 82 is to authorize the attorney general to conduct
civil investigations into Title 15 election law violations and
bring civil enforcement actions if a violation is found. Under
current statute, if the Division of Elections notices suspicious
behavior related to an election, the only option is for the
division to refer the matter for criminal investigation.
Ms. MILLS advised that SB 82 would add a civil investigation
tool similar to what the Department of Law does for consumer
protection investigations, but on an expedited basis. She
recounted the advantages of civil investigations. Action can be
taken more quickly, the evidentiary standard of proof is not as
high, and the Department of Law can more quickly get information
to the division it may need to make determinations during the
election. When needed, criminal and civil investigations could
run concurrently.
4:21:31 PM
MS. MILLS skipped ahead to slide 7 to discuss the complaint
referral process. She said an investigation can start with a
complaint from a member of the public, when the division notices
something out of the ordinary in the election process, or the
attorney general can initiate an investigation. Under SB 82, the
division would review a complaint that is filed and in
consultation with the Department of Law determine whether it
warrants investigation. If not, the complaint would be
dismissed. If the complaint warrants further review, it would be
forwarded to the attorney general who has discretion to conduct
an investigation and prioritize cases.
4:22:54 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska,
continued the presentation with a review of the steps of an
investigation from less formal to more formal. Informal
discovery includes voluntary interviews with victims, witnesses,
and the target of the investigation. More formal techniques
include subpoenas for testimony or documents from agencies. He
noted that the bill sets out standard deadlines with the option
to move faster for an impending election. At the end of the
investigation, the attorney general has the option of providing
a notice of findings to the division, going to court to seek
enforcement, or referral for criminal investigation.
4:24:10 PM
MR. FLYNN presented the sectional analysis for SB 82, including
the changes made in the previous committee.
SB 82, "An Act relating to elections and election
investigations" adds one new section to AS 15.56:
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.
Subsection (c), as amended, allows the attorney
general to investigate an alleged violation by issuing
subpoenas and interrogatories and by obtaining records
from agencies.
Subsection (d), as amended, explains that the attorney
general must serve the subpoenas and may initiate
contempt proceedings as prescribed by other laws.
Subsection (e), as amended, allows the attorney
general to obtain a court order requiring a response
through a subpoena or interrogatory in a shorter
amount of time than is provided in subsection (c).
Subsection (f), as amended, allows the recipient of a
subpoena or interrogatory under subsection (c) to file
an opposing lawsuit, which the court must expedite.
The court may choose to hear the attorney general's
argument ex parte.
Subsection (g), as amended, directs the attorney
general to provide the division with the result of the
investigation and a notice of findings once the
investigation is complete. In the event a complaint
against a state agency or employee has merit, the
division will make reasonable effort to respond.
4:26:23 PM
Subsection (h), as amended, provides that the notice
of findings and the record that supports the findings
are public records subject to the Public Records Act.
But intelligence information the attorney general has
gathered or provided to law enforcement is not subject
to disclosure.
Subsection (i) 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 (j), as amended, allows the attorney
general to seek a fine of no more than $250,000 per
violation along with reasonable fees and costs,
including the cost of the investigation.
4:27:00 PM
MR. FLYNN noted that subsection (k) was added by amendment.
Subsection (k) would require the attorney general to
file an action against a candidate or elected official
within two years of the filing of the complaint.
Subsections (l) and (m) allow the division and the
attorney general to adopt regulations to implement
this section.
Subsection (n) clarifies that the person filing the
complaint may always go to court.
Subsection (o) defines frivolous, state agency and
state employee.
4:28:13 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he had a number of questions, but he was
willing to wait for a written response if the answers were
lengthy. He raised the following questions:
• Is there an appeal process for dismissed complaints?
• What does information regarding intelligence information
include and why would that not be part of the public record
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
MS. MILLS answered that while there is no specific
administrative appeal process if the division dismisses a
complaint, this does not preclude the complainant from going to
court or the attorney general initiating an independent
investigation.
MS. MILLS, addressing the second question regarding intelligence
information, explained that the terms come from the Consumer
Protection Act, which makes the record of the investigation and
intelligence information confidential. She noted that the
Judiciary Committee determined that the public would benefit
from having some of the records be public, so they bifurcated
those into a record of investigation and intelligence
information. The record of investigation includes anything
needed to support the notice of findings and everything else,
such as tips, is considered intelligence information.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why a tip would not be disclosable
information.
MS. MILLS answered that a tip might lead to an additional
investigation and if disclosed, could hinder a future
investigation
CHAIR SHOWER advised that he read the list in statute of what
would be exempted.
4:33:33 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if it was wise to have the attorney
general in charge of the process since that is an appointed
rather than elected position.
MS. MILLS pointed out that the Department of Law already works
with sensitive matters that do not always align with the
position of elected officials and they have to find a balance.
In addition, the bill does not preclude going to court so the
information would be made public.
4:35:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern that every person would not
hold to such a high bar.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the importance of getting legislative
intent on the record and the notion of an elected or appointed
attorney general or an elected inspector general.
4:36:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 82.
4:36:40 PM
MORGAN LIM, representing Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate
(PPAA), Juneau, Alaska, stated that PPAA opposes both SB 82 and
SB 83. He reported that in the first quarter of 2021, more than
361 voter suppression measures have been introduced in 47
states. He posited that they are part of a nationwide trend as
many elected officials try to make it more difficult to cast a
ballot. He said SB 83 imposes burdensome voter identification
requirements on absentee voters and limits in-person voting in
communities with populations of less than 750. SB 82 perpetuates
the unsubstantiated narrative that election offenses are
widespread. Both bills claim to be combating election fraud, but
in reality are bills in search of a problem. Both bills will
likely disenfranchise voters, he said.
MR. LIM stated that PPAA supports policies that make it
convenient for eligible voters to register and cast a ballot and
opposes burdensome requirements for identification for absentee
voting and refusing to allow ballot curing. He pointed out that
the promise of equal access at the ballot box has not been
achieved when Black, indigenous, and people of color communities
are more likely to face barriers to voting. Nationwide there are
inadequate polling places, increasingly limited voting hours,
disenfranchised formerly incarcerated persons, and systematic
efforts to suppress votes.
He concluded saying that Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates
urges the committee not to advance either SB 82 or SB 83.
4:39:35 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 82 and held the bill
in committee. He advised that written testimony could be
submitted to [email protected].
SB 1-CHOKEHOLD BAN
4:40:05 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 1
"An Act prohibiting the use of chokeholds by peace officers; and
relating to justification of use of force by peace officers."
4:40:23 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 1, stated that the recent civilian casualties by
law enforcement has created real momentum to address a
longstanding injustice. She related that her office has been
working with Senator Begich's office to craft a series of bills
to reduce police violence. She has talked to stakeholders
throughout the process to ensure the proposals in SB 1 are
fitting for Alaska.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON reported that she engaged the Anchorage
Police Department, Anchorage Police Employees Association,
Public Safety Employees Association, and the National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) during
this process. Because of this proactive approach, she is
confident in moving forward to implement public safety policy
changes that will benefit both citizens and law enforcement
officers.
4:43:10 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON read the following sponsor statement for SB
1:
Police use numerous restraints to restrain and limit
the movement and overall activity of someone who poses
a danger to themselves or to others (including the
police officer). One of the most common restraints are
carotid and tracheal chokes. Both restraints impede
breathing and circulation of blood. If these
restraints are used incorrectly, death through
asphyxiation may occur. Throughout the United States,
there are cases of the misuse of chokeholds. Senate
Bill (SB) 1 would assist in reducing the rate of
chokeholds used incorrectly. SB1 would further seek to
improve police community relationships by addressing a
longstanding issue around use of force.
4:43:59 PM
BESSE ODOM, Staff, Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, read the following sectional
analysis for SB 1:
Section 1. This section amends AS 11.81.370, the statute
regarding use of force by a peace officer in making an
arrest or terminating an escape by adding a new subsection
that would prohibit the use of potentially lethal
restraints.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her understanding that the Anchorage
Police Department (APD) already had this prohibition and asked
what particular Alaska peace officer group was being targeted.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON agreed that APD prohibits choke holds and
said she brought this forward because the policy is not in state
statute. Therefore, a different APD police chief could decide to
change the current policy. The bill would apply to peace
officers throughout the state.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
4:46:39 PM
PETER MLYNARIK, Board Member, Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police (AACP), Soldotna, Alaska, stated that he has been in law
enforcement for 31 years, the last 9 of which have been as chief
of police in Soldotna. He said AACP agrees that without proper
training, the use of choke holds and carotid restraints can
cause serious injury or death. It is not uncommon for
departments to prohibit these types of force. AACP also believes
that police agencies in Alaska have good policies regarding use
of force and it is therefore unnecessary to mandate compliance
in statute. He offered his professional opinion that the proper
use of carotid restraints may prevent further injury. Whether or
not this type of restraint is used should be made by the
department. He said his experience is with the Alaska State
Troopers and the Soldotna Police Department, but he understands
that it is uncommon in Alaska to use a chokehold carotid
restraint when dealing with an individual.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed appreciation for the input from the
frontline. She commented on being a minority voice and offered
her view that everyone should be heard.
4:50:14 PM
MARK PEARSON, President, Alaska Peace Officers Association
(APOA0, Soldotna, Alaska, stated that he has been active in law
enforcement for the last 18 years and the APOA organization has
been active in representing law enforcement for 75 years. He
advised that when APOA had its annual meeting to discuss
relevant legislation with AACOP, PSEA and APDA, they voted
unanimously to oppose SB 1, SB 2, SB 3, SB 4, and SB 46. The
reason for the opposition was the collective belief that
policing regulation and certification should remain with the
Alaska Police Standards Council and within individual
departments. He said Alaska has unique challenges due to
geography and limited backup and its peace officers do not
respond in ways that might escalate the situation. He offered
that his experience in remote locations is that somebody you
arrest one day might be your backup another day, so everybody is
treated with respect.
MR. PEARSON challenged the information on BASIS indicating that
APOA supports SB 1 and other policing bills because they sent
letters of opposition for SB 1, SB 2, SB 3, SB 4, and SB 46. He
said that as the current president of APOA he speaks for law
enforcement throughout the state. He stressed that SB 1 would
place officers at risk and would negatively affect recruitment
and retention.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the Alaska Police Standards Council
(APSC) had a position.
MR. PEARSON recalled that in a previous hearing APSC said these
issues are already addressed in statute, but they did not take a
specific position.
CHAIR SHOWER said he was welcome to send his written testimony
to [email protected].
4:56:46 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON clarified that she never said that APOC was
part of the process when she was working on the bill.
4:57:13 PM
MS. ODOM confirmed that the sponsor's office did receive the
letters of opposition from APOC. She emphasized that contrary to
what the APOC letter stated, SB 1 does not take away
decertification authority from the Alaska Police Standards
Council. She added that the bill provides individual departments
and agencies as to when it is safe to use these methods. She
directed attention to the language on line 8 that read as
follow: "...force is authorized by law and the policy of the
entity that employs the officer."
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON added that her office worked diligently
with the chair of the Alaska Police Standards Council.
4:59:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 1.
4:59:33 PM
KATIE BOTZ, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, thanked the
sponsor for SB 1 and SB 4 and asked the committee to pass both
bills. She stated support for the police and related a concern
she had heard that police officers in Juneau do not have the
proper training to use choke holds.
5:01:21 PM
MORGAN LIM, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate (PPAA), Juneau,
Alaska, on behalf of PPAA, stated support SB 1 and SB 4 and
urged the committee to move both bills forward. He said PPAA
stands with Black, indigenous, and people of color communities
as they seek to create communities where they feel safe. This
involves transforming law enforcement. He said SB 1 is a first
step towards reducing police use of force, including deadly
force. He mentioned that SB 4 would prohibit police from
discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle. He cited data that
identifies Alaska as the second highest rate of police killings
in the country and the second highest rate of police violence
against Black and indigenous people. [His testimony was
terminated due to time constraints.]
5:03:06 PM
CEYLON MICHELL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that as a retired sergeant with the Department of Corrections,
he was testifying against SB 1 and SB 4. He said he has 45 years
in law enforcement/corrections, and he has not found a more
professional and well-trained group of officers than those that
he worked with in Alaska. They take pride in serving the people
of Alaska and they put their lives on the line for Alaskans
every day. He emphasized that officers go to work each day to do
their job to protect citizens and they also want to go home
safely to their families.
5:04:29 PM
DANIEL POTTER, representing self, Mat-Su Valley, Alaska, stated
that he has been in law enforcement in Alaska for about seven
years and has never seen a chokehold used. He shared that he had
experienced choke holds numerous times while in the Army and he
is "fine." He offered his belief that there was a lot of fear
mongering associated with this method of restraint and that law
enforcement was being over legislated. He stated opposition to
both SB 1 and SB 4.
5:05:36 PM
RON VIGIL, Anchorage Chapter President, Alaska Peace Officers
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 1, SB 4,
and SB 46. He related that in his 24 years in law enforcement he
has worked for departments that allow and departments that do
not allow lateral vascular neck restraints. He knows the APSC
sets the standards for the training that is required and to over
legislate to Lower 48 standards is not appropriate for Alaska
communities. He asked the committee not to pass the bills.
5:07:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recessed the meeting to a call of the chair.
5:36:30 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. A roll call showed the
presence of SENATOR COSTELLO in capitol room 118 and SENATOR
HOLLAND in capitol room 113 and CHAIR SHOWER in the committee
room.
5:37:26 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 1 and held the bill
in committee.
SB 4-PROHIBIT PEACE OFF. SHOOT MOVING VEHICLE
5:37:50 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to justification of use of force by a peace
officer; and relating to shooting at a moving vehicle."
5:38:02 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 4, read the sponsor statement into the record.
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB4 "An Act relating to justification of use of force
by a peace officer; and relating to shooting at a
moving vehicle."
The use of force in making an arrest or stop is not
justified under this bill if the peace officer
knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction
of a propelled vehicle while another person is
operating the vehicle unless the vehicle poses a risk
of imminent danger to a peace officer or others.
With the passing of SB4, AS 11.81.370(d) will amend
the previous Statute by adding a new section to read:
Applicability, which would apply to conduct by a peace
officer occurring on or after the effective date of
this Act.
5:39:07 PM
KEITH BAUGUESS, Staff, Senator Gray-Jackson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 4.
Section 1: Amends AS 11.81.370 (d) by adding a new
subsection to read: If, in making an arrest or stop, a
peace officer knowingly discharges a firearm at or in
the direction of a propelled vehicle while another
person is operating the vehicle, the use of force is
not justified under this section unless the person is
operating the vehicle in a manner that poses an
immediate threat of serious risk to the life of the
officer or another person.
Section 2: Adopts conforming language from section 1,
setting an effective date.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
5:40:42 PM
PETER MLYNARIK, Board Member, Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police (AACOP), Soldotna, Alaska, stated that AACOP believes
that shooting at a moving vehicle is deadly force but the use of
the words "not justified" creates an automatic at fault for an
officer. AACOP also believes that police already have policies
and procedures that effectively deal with this sort of incident,
and it should not be governed by statute. He emphasized that
agencies are capable and do a good job of self-regulating.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the option to work together to find a
bridge or compromise to meet the intent of the sponsor and
assuage the concerns of law enforcement.
5:43:20 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON expressed appreciation for the comments and
stressed that this and her other bills were not trying to take
control away from any agency. The intent is to standardize
procedures in statute. She highlighted her high regard for law
enforcement and her longstanding and positive working
relationship with APD.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Chief Mlynarik to comment on the idea of
working to find a compromise.
CHIEF MLYNARIK said he would be willing to work on a compromise
in the language and he appreciated the sponsor's concern for
public safety.
5:45:46 PM
MARK PEARSON, President, Alaska Peace Officers Association
(APOA), Soldotna, Alaska, stated that APOA represents a number
of police organizations and departments throughout the state. On
behalf of APOA, he stated opposition to SB 4. He said the
collective belief is that policing regulation and certification
should remain with the Alaska Police Standards Council and
within individual departments. He highlighted that APOA sent a
letter to both the sponsor and Senator Begich stating opposition
to a suite of bills that included SB 4. However, that is not
reflected on BASIS.
5:47:21 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD joined the committee
CHAIR SHOWER commented that further conversation with APOA may
be a good idea to try to find common ground.
5:47:50 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON stated that she would reach out to APOA and
some of the agencies it represents to try come to consensus.
CHAIR SHOWER offered to work with both APOA and the sponsor to
look for common ground.
MR. PEARSON thanked the committee for its time.
5:48:53 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 4.
5:49:11 PM
RON VIGIL, President, Alaska Peace Officers Association,
Anchorage Chapter, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he has been in
law enforcement for 24 years and throughout that time
departments have followed the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v.
Conner that determined that an objective reasonableness standard
should apply regarding the use of force by law enforcement. He
said every department trains for and uses this standard. He
offered his professional belief that SB 4 was a step in the
wrong direction and did not reflect the unique circumstances,
the training, and the professionalism of law enforcement in
Alaska.
CHAIR SHOWER restated the offer to work with the sponsor and law
enforcement agencies to consider ideas or compromise language
that might be acceptable.
5:51:30 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 4 and held the bill
in committee.
SB 115-ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM
5:52:08 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to confidentiality of information; relating to
the duties of the Department of Administration; creating an
address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective
date."
5:52:23 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 115, stated that this legislation creates an
address confidentiality program similar to what 41 other states
have done. He recounted two stories to demonstrate the need for
this program. The first was about a survivor of domestic
violence who got out of a life-threatening marriage. She had a
protective order against her abuser, moved to a new city, and
received her mail at a post office box. He noted that this was
before the days of social media. Quite some time later, she
spotted her abuser waiting in a car outside the post office in
her new city. Senator Kiehl said he didn't want to think what
might have happened if she hadn't spotted her abuser. He said he
learned about the second story from a friend who works in one of
the law enforcement professions. It is not public. In summary,
this individual and his family were threatened and to this day
he fears for his home and his family.
5:53:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that SB 115 is designed to balance
safety for those who need it while maintaining the various
public records. Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault,
stalking, peace officers, and correctional officers could
receive their mail - especially their public records mail - at a
central state address. That mail would then be forwarded to the
individual's actual mailing address that remains confidential
and cannot be found through a public records search by an abuser
or someone bent on revenge.
SENATOR KIEHL advised that the Department of Administration
would host the program and that mail would go to the
confidential address for five years after the expiration of a
protective order or the work of a peace officer or correctional
officer ends. He committed to continue to work with the
department, law enforcement, correctional officers, and victim
advocates over the Interim to fine tune the bill for next
session. This work will include a cost estimate based on the
experience of other states. He said he hopes the cost will be
small, but it is a cost worth paying to keep Alaskans safe.
CHAIR SHOWER requested the sectional analysis.
5:57:17 PM
EDRIC CARRILLO, Staff, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the following sectional
analysis for SB 115.
Sec. 1: Updates court laws to add confidentiality for
peace officers and state and municipal correctional
officers to existing laws for victims and witnesses
Sec. 2: Personal address and telephone number of peace
officers and correctional officers are confidential in
court documents and must be redacted before release.
Sec. 3: Personal address and telephone number of peace
officers and correctional officers are confidential in
open court and cannot be placed in court files unless
ordered by the court.
5:57:55 PM
Sec. 4: Defines state and municipal correctional
officers.
Sec. 5: Assigns the duty to administer an address
confidentiality program to the Department of
Administration.
Sec. 6: Creates the new program, describing its
purpose, requiring a Post Office Box as a substitute
mailing address for enrollees, and requiring the
department to adopt regulations. This section
describes eligibility, requires state and municipal
agency to accept the P.O. Box, and describes the five-
year eligibility period. It lays out how that period
may be extended and forbids the department from
charging a fee. The section allows a peace officer
access to an enrollee's personal address with a search
warrant and establishes penalties for unlawfully
revealing a protected individual's address.
Sec. 7: Establishes a transition period for the
department to adopt regulations to implement the bill.
Sec. 8: Sets an immediate effective date for the
process to adopt regulations.
Sec. 9: Sets an effective date of Feb. 1, 2022 for the
rest of the bill.
5:59:14 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the bill had a provision to protect
the addresses of individuals on the permanent fund dividend and
voter registration rolls.
SENATOR KIEHL replied, the bill does not change the underlying
law on those addresses but a person participating in the
registry could use the state protected address on their
application.
6:00:30 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if any group was opposed to this
legislation.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that his office had not received any
opposition, he was not expecting any opposition, and his office
was working to make the cost acceptable.
6:01:22 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if any consideration was given to including
other categories of individuals such as judges or if the bill
was a model legislation.
MR. CARRILLO answered that the research so far indicates that
the question has been considered but nothing has come of it. He
offered to follow up.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that there may be other categories of
individuals that would benefit from being included. He said he
liked the idea and would suggest casting the net as wide as
possible.
SENATOR REINBOLD suggested doing a risk benefit analysis because
the list could become very broad.
CHAIR SHOWER said he agrees but the concept is solid.
SENATOR KIEHL said he would include those items in the analysis
and the work with the department over the Interim. He noted that
when he introduced similar legislation in the previous
legislature someone made the insightful observation that
regardless of the requirements, the department cannot erase
somebody's Facebook page and other online records. Using himself
as an example, he said he constantly posts on social media as
part of his interaction with friends and constituents so he
would not benefit from this registry. However, the people who
will benefit are those who are seriously guarding their privacy
daily from a major, violent threat. He reiterated that he would
look at the other categories as part of the analysis.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
6:06:18 PM
MATTHEW DUBOIS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated that
he has been a police officer with the Juneau Police Department
(JPD) since 2007, he is a member of the Public Safety Employees
Association (PSEA) union, and he sits on the board. He said he
was speaking in favor of SB 115, and he had personal examples to
support that position. The first was when a corrections officer
contacted him to relay information he heard while monitoring a
violent felon's prison phone conversation. The individual stated
his intention to look up Officer DuBois's home address when he
was released from jail and cause him harm. The second example
relates to what is called extra patrol. This is when officers
drive by another officer's home because they have received
serious threats. He related that another alarming incident was
learning about a webpage that had profiles of police officers in
Fairbanks and North Pole. The data included the officers' home
addresses, phone numbers, where their spouses worked, and where
their children went to school. He concluded that SB 115 would
not only protect the groups listed in the bill, but also their
families.
SENATOR KIEHL restated his commitment to continue to work with
the people in law enforcement, the victim community, and the
department to refine the bill.
6:09:40 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 115; finding none, he
closed public testimony and advised that public testimony could
be submitted to [email protected].
[SB 115 was held in committee.]
SB 83-ELECTIONS; VOTING; BALLOT REQS
6:10:01 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to elections; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR SHOWER stated he was extending the amendment period for SB
83. He noted who was available to answer questions, but found
none.
6:11:01 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 83 in committee.
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
6:11:08 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 3(JUD) "An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
He noted that this was the second hearing and public testimony
was closed. He asked the sponsor if she had any comments.
6:11:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 3, advised that a representative from the
Court System was available to answer questions about how [the
recent cybersecurity breach] affected the Court System. She
deferred further comment to her staff, Eric Cordero.
6:12:28 PM
ERIC CORDERO, Staff Representative DeLana Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, offered to answer any lingering
questions about HB 3.
SENATOR COSTELLO stated support for the bill and asked if other
states had added cybersecurity into their disaster statutes.
MR. CORDERRO answered that a number of states have listed
cybersecurity in their disaster statutes and the Department of
Homeland Security is encouraging all states to be more proactive
in protecting against cyber threats. He noted that Legislative
Legal Services suggested the legislature clarify the disaster
statute after it removed the reference to manmade causes several
years ago.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the times the state has been breached
the last several years, including elections and the Court
System. He listed the individuals available to answer questions.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if a disaster can be declared based on a
cyber [attack]. She added that she was "kind of done with
disaster declarations and emergency declarations right now."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that everyone is probably sick
and tired of what's happened in the last year, but it has caused
a greater understanding of the declaration of disaster than when
she initially introduced the bill nearly two years ago. She
deferred further response to Mr. Corderro.
MR. CORDERRO explained that the language in the bill
specifically refers to a credible immanent threat of widespread
damage to critical infrastructure due to a cyber attack. He
noted that Nancy Mead could comment on the recent cyber attack
on the Court System database.
6:16:54 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, offered her belief that the record might benefit from
hearing about the recent widespread cyber attack on the Court
System database. She said it has been very difficult to deal
with and it has affected the public because all their websites
and CourtView are offline. A team is working around the clock to
create workarounds and resolve the issues. The court immediately
hired a security consultant to determine the extent of the
attack and the expectation is to soon enter the remediation
phase.
6:17:36 PM
MS. MEADE said many people would acknowledge that the Court
System is critical to the ongoing operations of the state, and
it was fortunate that the attack did not completely shut the
court down. Employees have internal access to email, but nobody
can email the Court System and employees have no access to the
internet. She acknowledged that the Court System has some older
equipment that made it vulnerable and said the monetary damage
is very real. She advised that she spoke to the sponsor about
letting the committee and others know about what an impact this
sort of attack can have.
CHAIR SHOWER said he understands Senator Reinbold's comment, but
a cyber attack of a certain scope and scale would certainly be a
disaster.
He asked the sponsor if she had final comments.
6:19:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her belief that the threat of
cyber attacks would not decrease over time.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that it is the world today.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she had to read between the lines to
discern that the answer was "yes" and that was a concern. She
maintained that terms such as "widespread" and "infrastructure"
were not adequately defined. She said she would not try to slow
the bill, but her recommendation would be to amend because the
bill needed sideboards.
CHAIR SHOWER committed to work with the sponsor in the next
committee of referral. He solicited a motion.
6:21:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report HB 3, work order 32-LS0041\W,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSHB 3(JUD) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SJR 12-SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT REDUCTION REPEAL
6:21:57 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 12 Urging the United States Congress to repeal
the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset
of the Social Security Act.
He noted that the bill was previously heard, the amendment
period was past, and public testimony was opened and closed. He
asked the sponsor if he had final comments.
6:22:18 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SJR 12, said this is about fairness. Somebody
who pays into Social Security through multiple private sector
employers is not penalized but somebody who works in the private
sector and moves to a public sector employer in Alaska is
penalized. It could amount to $6,000 per year. His office heard
from hundreds of Alaskans who have been penalized. Alaska has
the highest percentage of people in the U.S. who are penalized
by [the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and/or the
Government Pension Offset (GPO)]. This includes public
employees, military veterans, firefighters, police officers,
nurses, and teachers. He emphasized that the resolution will
cost the state nothing. It simply urges Congress to say it
values the public service and it will not penalize people for
it.
SENATOR HOLLAND said he was not opposed to the resolution, but
he wondered what the cost would be at the federal level.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the rough math would be 12,000
Alaskans who are penalized up to $6,000 per year. He pointed out
that this was money that people have put into Social Security,
so it was a matter of fairness.
SENATOR HOLLAND clarified that he was not opposed to the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further questions or comments and
solicited a motion.
6:25:08 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SJR 12, work order 32-LS0664\B,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SJR 12 was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 91-DETENTION OF MINORS
6:25:33 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the detention of minors; relating to
minors subject to adult courts; relating to the placement of
minors in adult correctional facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
[CSSB 91(HSS) was before the committee.]
6:26:12 PM
At ease
6:27:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and moved Conceptual
Amendment 1 to SB 91.
CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT 1
Adds a new Section 1 that amends AS 18.85.100(a) by
inserting "or at a review hearing under AS
47.12.105(f)" following "Child in Need of Aid Rules".
Renumber subsequent sections.
He read subsection (a) with the new language.
SENATOR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
6:28:22 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Meade for an explanation and why it was
requested.
6:28:29 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, described the proposed amendment as somewhat conforming.
She directed attention to page 8, lines 25 and 26 of CSSB
91(HSS), version I. It is the provision about minors who have
been waived into adult court. She explained that if the judge
determined that the minor should be held in an adult
correctional facility, the minor is entitled to a review hearing
every 30 days to make sure they still need to be held in an
adult facility. Lines 25 and 26 say the minor is entitled to
counsel at the review hearing and the amendment clarifies who
provides that counsel. It authorizes the public defender to do
what the bill says a waived minor is entitled to have.
6:30:52 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if this had been discussed with the public
defender.
MS. MEADE confirmed that the public defender had no opposition,
and the sponsor and administration were aware of this.
6:31:31 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND withdrew his objection.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further objection and Conceptual Amendment
1 passed. Finding no further comments or questions, he solicited
a motion.
6:32:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 91 as amended, work order
[32-GS1576\I] as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
6:32:43 PM
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSB 91(STA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 117-PROCUREMENT; CONSTRUCTION; CONTRACTS
6:33:05 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 117
"An Act relating to the state procurement code; establishing the
construction manager general contractor procurement method; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SHOWER he asked if there were questions or comments.
6:33:30 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for a high-level summary of the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER read the transmittal letter.
6:35:45 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if this aligns with federal code.
CHAIR SHOWER answered yes.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she always appreciates the analysis on the
fiscal note. She read the last paragraph that read as follows:
The department's experience is that the CMGC
contracting method produces decreased contractor
change orders and quicker project completion and,
therefore, will result in an unknown savings in staff
time and leveraging of departmental resources.
SENATOR COSTELLO said the department has been using this method
and she would urge the committee to pass the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked her for the input.
6:37:26 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND said he was not opposed to the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER solicited a motion.
6:37:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 117, work order 32-GS1579\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 117 was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
6:38:48 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 6:38 p.m.