HB 146-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERSONAL INFORMATION  3:31:18 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act prohibiting public employers from disclosing certain public employee personal information; making disclosure of certain public employee personal information an unfair labor practice; and creating an exception to the Public Records Act for certain public employee personal information." 3:32:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN HALL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented HB 146. She began by paraphrasing part of the sponsor statement [included in the committee file], which read in its entirety as follows [original punctuation provided]: A Right to Privacy is guaranteed in Alaska's Constitution, established in 1972 by a vote of the people. Since then, this right has been enumerated into many aspects of Alaskans' daily lives. Simply put, the Constitution protects our personal information and the discretion required to ensure individual privacy is not a courtesy but an expectation. House Bill 146 clarifies that in the course of state employment, certain personal information home address, personal email, personal phone number, payroll deduction history, union status, and date of birth, among other details will also be privileged under state law. This is a natural extension of disclosure prohibitions contained in the State Personnel Act, which does not specify things such as email addresses. REPRESENTATIVE HALL began a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the committee file], with an introduction of the goals of HB 146. She said that the purpose and scope of HB 146 is to prohibit the disclosure of public employee information. The proposed legislation would expand Title 23 and would identify the release of personal data as an unfair labor practice. Furthermore, it would amend Alaska Statute (AS) 40.25.120 by adding a conforming change to the Public Records Statute that would mirror AS 23.40.110. This would clarify that releasing personal information to the public would violate privacy rights. Furthermore, it would prohibit employers from releasing private information, regardless of union membership. REPRESENTATIVE HALL said that in 1972 the Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) began developing the Alaska Justice Information System (AJIS), a computer database intended to log Alaska's criminal history. She said that some legislators including Terry Miller believed that this system would violate Alaskans' privacy. She said to think along the lines of "Big Brother." She said that Terry Miller began working with Attorney General John Havelock to mitigate this concern. She said that the document on the committee screens was an excerpt from the AJIS updated master plan, which she noted could also be found online. She explained the use of AJIS and said that it was explicitly designed to provide interagency communication. She said that much like what Alaskans are concerned with today, legislators in 1972 were afraid that AJIS would be misused and violate Alaskans privacy. REPRESENTATIVE HALL said that in 1972, the legislators began drafting a constitutional amendment with Attorney General John Havelock. In May of that year, Senate Joint Resolution 68 was introduced, which recognized Alaskans' right to privacy. She said the resolution passed with a vote of 39-1 in the State House of Representatives and 16-2 in the State Senate. In August 1972, this issue also appeared before the voters, and a constitutional amendment was adopted with 86 percent support. After the vote, Article 22 was adopted into the Alaska State Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE HALL remarked that other states have made similar constitutional provisions. These include Arizona, California, Florida, Hawai'i, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Washington, and New Hampshire. She told the committee that this information was included in the bill file as a memorandum ("memo") from Legislative Research Services. REPRESENTATIVE HALL redirected attention to the bill of discussion, HB 146. She pointed out to committee members examples of mailers sent to public employees, which she described as privacy violations. She remarked that some of the mailers request personal information as an opt-out option, and the senders often pretend to be affiliated with the Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) or other organizations. She reiterated that public employees should expect their personal contact information to be protected. She said that much has changed since the constitutional amendment was passed in 1972. She pointed out to the committee additional examples of information that have been sent to public employees and the misleading steps that mailing organizations take. In closing, she said that Alaskans have a strong constitutional right to privacy, but public employees are a group that has been overlooked. She said that the legislature can protect public employees with HB 146. 3:38:21 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced the committee would hear invited testimony. 3:38:38 PM HEIDI DRYGAS, Executive Director, Alaska State Employees Association/American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (ASEA/AFSCME), began invited testimony on HB 146 by thanking Representative Hall for carrying the legislation. She said that protecting employees' privacy is a safety and security issue and public employees deserve the same right to personal privacy and safety as any other Alaskan. She said that releasing personal details such as home addresses, phone numbers or email addresses can put public workers at risk of harassment, identity theft, or worse. She said that employees in sensitive roles such as law enforcement, child welfare, or even revenue collection can face retaliation or threats if personal information is too easily accessible. MS. DRYGAS said that employee information disclosures revealed trends among public employees and identified interest groups that have become targets of unsolicited commercial and political campaigns. She said that the State of Alaska (SOA) employs more than 16,000 people and even limited disclosures can reveal a significant amount of personal information. Once this information is released, SOA has no control over how employee details are further distributed. She said that when the state discloses private employee details, it exposes employees to risk of spammers and manipulators. MS. DRYGAS explained that since the Janus vs. American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Supreme Court decision on June 27, 2018, union membership for public employees has been an elective decision. She remarked that SOA facilitates misinformation and harassment aimed at union members. She said that these concerns are not limited to union membership or the lack thereof. Personal employee contact information is subject to disclosure to any number of outside third-party organizations. She said that the proposed legislation would balance transparency with constitutional privacy protections. It would not eliminate public transparency around job titles, salaries or employment status; it simply would limit the release of personal details that are not necessary for government oversight. She said that the proposed legislation is a reasonable and targeted approach to protect public sector workers. The bill would also support recruitment and retention in public service at a time when Alaska is facing challenges retaining public workers. She said that the focus should be on making appeals to employees. Knowing that their personal details are protected would build trust in the workplace. She said this is especially important in rural departments. 3:42:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Ms. Drygas why this was a legislative push rather than being part of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where he opined it belongs. MS. DRYGAS responded that this was a good question and there was some language in statute about being able to provide information to the bargaining representative, but she felt that it makes the most sense to have this in statute because not all public employees are represented by a union. She said that the legislation is about asserting privacy rights, which is not necessarily in the purview of collective bargaining. She said that enforcing privacy rights would be enforcing the rights of the Alaska Constitution and would clarify in statute that the right to privacy includes ensuring personal emails, phone numbers, and addresses are not part of a broad information request by third-party organizations. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked for clarification of what sets public employee unions apart from private sector unions. He said that when he negotiated on behalf of his company, they had put this in the CBA. He asked the reason for placing this legislation in statute for just public sector employees and not the private sector as well, as their rights to privacy remain worth consideration. He said the privacy agreements could be placed in the Union CBA and not state law. MS. DRYGAS responded that public employees were in a unique position, but she certainly supports protecting the privacy rights of all employees, union or not. She explained that the difference in being a public employee is that records are subject to the Alaska Public Records Act, and this requires certain disclosures when receiving information requests, unlike private employees. She reiterated the importance of understanding that the bill covers non-unionized public employees as well. She reported that some public employees were getting unnecessary emails, political information and flyers. She said the union works hard to differentiate between collective bargaining and political action, which is handled by the organization's political action committee (PAC). She said the union has members of all political stripes and efforts are made to keep these things separate. She remarked that just recently one of the union members in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat- Su) Valley received an e-mail from a Pro-Palestinian group and was unaware of how they were put on e-mail lists. She reiterated that all the proposed legislation would do is keep certain information private to keep these types of occurrences from happening. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that the state's voter rolls have addresses on them that could be cross-referenced for gathering information regarding employees. He reaffirmed that the proposed legislation would be better accomplished in a CBA rather than under law. He believed that there were around 22,000 total state employees and asked if that was an accurate figure. MS. DRYGAS responded that she believed it was around 16,000 employees and Representative McCabe's figure may have included university affiliates and others not captured by her figure. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reiterated that this concern would be better addressed in CBA. 3:48:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he was surprised to see this bill because given his experience working in the private sector, private employers never release this type of information. He said it was easy to assume that all employers had some level of standardization with regard to protecting employee privacy. He said he was shocked to hear that SOA employees have this easily accessible information. He acknowledged that there are many ways to find information but legal obligations to release information were something new to him and he appreciated the bill intent. He mentioned his previous university training to maintain privacy for students and faculty. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the proposed legislation would change information that was accessible with the SOA's workplace directory. Furthermore, he asked whether there had been considerations for contracted employees working on behalf of SOA. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that to her understanding, the state employee directory would remain public. She added that when it comes to contractors, her understanding was when looking Section 1, subsection (a) of the proposed legislation, on page 1, line [7], the language read that "a public employer or an agent of a public employer may not". She interpreted this language to include contractors. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked about personal contractors that may be using personal e-mails and phone numbers when doing contracted work for SOA. He was unsure how private information would be handled in these instances. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that to her understanding, every department operates differently, and contractors and subcontractors may be different on a case-by-case basis. She said that she could follow up with a more concise answer. 3:53:34 PM MS. DRYGAS added that she had experience interfacing with the employee directory and, to her knowledge, she had never seen a contractor listed in the directory. She said that the employee directory is helpful for navigating departmental personnel across the state. She said that she navigates the directory frequently and reiterated that she had not seen contractors listed. She explained that contractors were not public employees and were subject to different requirements. MS. DRYGAS confirmed that there are many ways to get private information as Representative McCabe had mentioned, but she did not believe that one of those ways to get information should be with a request for information to the State of Alaska, which requires compliance. She did not know whether contractors were subject to the same kind of disclosures, but the name of the contractor would be public. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he would appreciate some work looking into this and that this could have implications. He said an agency might hire contractors for SOA related work. He said the question would be whether the contractor's contact can be listed if the contact information was also personal information. He said that the state uses contractors a lot these days and it would be a potential issue that should be addressed. He asked how the Federal Government, as an employer, handles this type of personal information for Federal employees. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she did not know how the Federal Government handles employee information but could investigate it and follow up. She said that within her district she has gone to multiple community council meetings that often have state contractors present. She said that some of these contractors give work e-mails as contact information. She talked about the Fish Creek Trail Connection Project as an example of contracted work. She said in her experience, she has seen only work e-mails associated with contractors - not personal information. 3:57:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether legislators were technically considered employees of SOA. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that legislators were considered employees of SOA. 3:58:23 PM CHAIR CARRICK affirmed Representative McCabe's comments about the ease of gathering information. She remarked that it could even include Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) reports. 3:59:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that private information disclosures due to a condition of employment "did not sit well with her." 3:59:34 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked how common employee privacy protection policies were in the private sector. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she did not know the answer but could follow up with a response. MS. DRYGAS explained that the private sector was different due to differences in disclosure requirements defined by AS. 4:01:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE MOORE said that private information about legislators was a different scenario than most SOA employees due to APOC disclosures. She asked Representative Hall what the rationale was to keep payroll deduction histories and union status private. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that language in Section 7 of HB 146, on page 2, line 26, states: "any information about an employee's charitable payroll deductions, except to the receiving charity". She said Ms. Drygas could better speak to the reason for union status privacy. MS. DRYGAS added that most of Alaska's public employees feel that their associations with various organizations are private matters unless they chose to share them. She said it's much like making donations to various charities. She said that most people who make charitable donations consider them private. She gave examples of the National Rifle Association (NRA) or even the Sierra Club as associations that often remain private. She said that many employees do not want to share potentially partisan associations and said that there is something fundamental about Alaskans' belief in privacy rights. REPRESENTATIVE MOORE commented that she thought that being public employees, and paid with public funds, certain pieces of information should be available to the public. 4:05:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE explained that AS 39.25.080 already exempts all the public employee records, except for name and position, and there are very few exemptions. He said it suggests that the state is already not supposed to disclose this type of private information. He asked whether this was a correct assumption. REPRESENTATIVE HALL noted that there is a committee substitute (CS) that was going to be introduced that conforms to current AS. 4:06:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Representative Hall, given that the bill is about public employees, why there wasn't someone who represents all public employees available to speak to the proposed bill. REPRESENTATIVE HALL responded that she would be happy to find people who can speak to the proposed legislation in future committee hearings. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that what she heard in the testimony was that this proposed legislation is about the Janus vs. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court Case. She remarked that the hearing was unexpected for her and having this be about all public employees without someone who represented public employees made discussions feel one-sided. She was struggling to see the instances of how people have this information so readily available. She wanted to find out what was done currently to protect employees' information. She asked how it may impact the Supreme Court ruling. MS. DRYGAS explained that the proposed legislation had nothing to do with implementing Janus vs. AFSCME rulings. She talked about the ability of outside, third-party organizations to target members of union membership as a "by-product" of the case. She said that it's not anything related to the ruling. She did not think the information was so readily available and highlighted information request requirements. She talked about the Alaska Public Records Act and discussed the dynamics associated with records requests. She said that the legislation was about keeping personal information private when issued these requests. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that during the presentation, Ms. Drygas had specifically said the State of Alaska put out "propaganda" about the Janus vs. AFSCME ruling and the proposed bill was specifically trying to counter the administration's wishes with regards to implementing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. She said that it seemed to her that the bill was really about that decision. 4:10:49 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 146 was held over.