HOUSE BILL NO. 28 "An Act restricting the release of certain records of convictions; and providing for an effective date." 1:14:18 PM Co-Chair Foster asked for a brief synopsis of the legislation. ALLAN RIORDIAN-RANDALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, briefly reviewed the bill. He explained that the bill would limit access and background checks to marijuana conviction records for low level possession convictions. Additionally, the bill would codify the actions of the Alaska Court System so that in the future, no records addressed in the bill could be put back on CourtView. Co-Chair Foster noted there were two amendments for consideration. He verified that Representative Tomaszewski and Representative Coulombe were both online. 1:16:07 PM AT EASE 1:17:26 PM RECONVENED Representative Tomaszewski MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33- LS0271\S.3 (Radford, 5/2/23)(copy on file): Page 3, line 3, following "case;": Insert "and" Page 3, line 4: Delete "; and" Insert"." Page 3, lines 5 - 6: Delete all material. Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Tomaszewski explained that the amendment would delete the fee charged to the individual trying to get their name removed [from CourtView]. He detailed that [the fee] was not part of the original bill and had been added in later. Based on discussions with other committee members and the bill sponsor he felt it was egregious to have a fee of not less than $150. The amendment would eliminate the fee. Co-Chair Foster stated the amendment would delete the $150 fee for a person to have their name removed. He asked if there were any questions or comments on the amendment. Representative Coulombe remarked that she had a lot of experience hiring sales cashiers and people for retail jobs. She shared there were times when she had been unable to pursue someone because of "this kind of thing" on their record. She fully supported the bill and amendment. She highlighted that it was not a group who could afford $150 minimum. She stated the last they had heard in committee was the fee was $150 per conviction to be removed. She agreed with Representative Tomaszewski that the fee was too much. She supported the bill and amendment. 1:19:40 PM Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions. Co-Chair Edgmon asked for the sponsor's staff to state their position on the amendment. Mr. Riordian-Randall stated the sponsor viewed it as a friendly amendment. Representative Stapp was in favor of the amendment and had a question about the impact on the fiscal note. LISA PURINTON, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, the amendment would impact the funding source, but not the total dollar value. She explained that the funds would come from general funds instead of program receipts (derived from the fee). Representative Stapp stated the department was looking at hiring an individual to administer [the bill]. He surmised that if the amendment passed the individual would likely not need to stay on more than two years because the fee schedule would be eliminated. He asked if it would be appropriate to sunset that hire if the amendment passed. Ms. Purinton replied affirmatively. She elaborated that when the Department of Public Safety (DPS) did its estimate for the fiscal note, it had used the total number of records that could be potentially impacted by the bill and had determined the research time it took existing staff to research other records. The department had estimated that while the person would not be actively serving the public in processing the requests, they would be researching historical records in order for existing staff to process the requests more quickly. 1:22:10 PM Representative Stapp asked if it was fair to say that the process would be completed by FY 26. Ms. Purinton answered that normally she would say yes, but she could guarantee it based on the current hiring environment. Representative Stapp asked if FY 27 was fair. Ms. Purinton agreed. Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which would to sunset the temporary hire by FY 27. Representative Hannan OBJECTED for clarity. She supported the amendment conceptually but wondered how it pertained to Amendment 1. She reasoned that the proposed conceptual amendment was separate from Amendment 1 and pertained to the fiscal note. Representative Stapp WITHDREW the conceptual amendment with the intention of offering it later. 1:24:00 PM Representative Galvin stated the sponsor statement specified that the goal was to get Alaskans back to work, which she appreciated. She referenced Representative Coulombe's point that there were many people she had worked with who had difficulty finding their way to employment due to the barrier of having their name in the system from the infractions in addition to the cost [in the current bill]. She believed the cost "of all of this" balanced with getting Alaskans back to work made it easy for her to support the amendment and bill. Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding that the passage of the amendment passed would mean there would be an associated cost. She thought that the inclusion of the section in the bill resulted in a zero fiscal note because it would pay for itself with revenues generated. Ms. Purinton replied it was the way DPS estimated it. She explained it was a bit of an unknown because the department did not know the number of people who would come forward. The department was anticipating there would be sufficient people to come forward who would pay the fee, which would cover the cost the department would incur to research the records and make the programming change. Co-Chair Johnson highlighted that receiving fees [from individuals requesting to have their name removed from the system] would zero out the fiscal note. Co-Chair Foster stated the fiscal note included $189,000 that would have come from fees. It was his understanding that the passage of the amendment would mean there was no money because the amendment did not address backfilling the funds with UGF [undesignated general funds]. He surmised it meant the department would have to absorb the $189,000. Ms. Purinton answered that DPS would want to submit an amended fiscal note to specify the funding cost would need to come from UGF. 1:27:13 PM Representative Josephson asked for verification that the Senate would have the ability to change the fiscal note [once it received the bill]. Co-Chair Foster agreed. Representative Hannan asked if she was correct in assuming there would be a computer reprogramming cost if the bill passed regardless of whether one person paid $150, or no one paid a fee. She thought there was additional cost related to individuals requesting the removal of their name out of the system because the cases would have to be researched individually. She surmised that the fund source would change if the fee was deleted and the workload differentiating between individuals who paid to have their name removed and those who did not would lessen because all would be treated the same. She asked if she was correct. Ms. Purinton answered the department would have to pay a contract programmer to program the mainframe system to prevent the records from display. The second phase was to have an individual do the research. She explained that not all of the disposition information in the state's criminal history repository had the specific subsections referenced that clearly identified the qualifying records. She noted those were fairly easy to address. She explained that the research would pertain to cases where the department needed to verify the record was within the scope of under an ounce of marijuana and over 21 years of age at the time of the offense. 1:29:35 PM AT EASE 1:30:44 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Legislative Finance Division. He made a facetious remark [Mr. Painter had just entered the room]. He explained that Amendment 1 would eliminate the $150 fee to have a person's name removed from past marijuana convictions. He elaborated that the passage of the amendment would mean there would be no DGF [designated general funds] for DPS, meaning the department would have to absorb the cost unless the committee did something to fix it. He asked about the process. ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, answered that the agency could provide a revised fiscal note based on the amended bill with fiscal note forthcoming. The committee could also draft its own fiscal note, which was usually adopted prior to moving the bill. Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding that the committee could pass the amendment and use the terminology "with forthcoming fiscal note" when the bill was reported from committee. Mr. Painter agreed that the agency would revise the fiscal note according to the change made in committee. 1:33:16 PM Representative Josephson asked for verification that if the agency decided not to do a revised fiscal note it would have to absorb the cost. Mr. Painter replied that the agency could submit a zero fiscal note. He explained that the other body could adopt an agency fiscal note or a committee fiscal note to add the money or the conference committee could adopt conference committee fiscal note adding funding. He stated that ultimately the fiscal note was a reflection of the fiscal impact of the bill that needed to be adopted into an appropriation bill. He explained that if the other body or conference committee felt the agency fiscal note was inaccurate, they could prepare their own. Representative Hannan asked what the fiscal note had been before the House Judiciary Committee had added the $150 fee. Ms. Purinton replied that the department's fiscal note had been almost identical to the current note, but the funding source had been UGF instead of program receipts. Representative Stapp asked if it was possible to have a zero fiscal note if there was an added PCN. Mr. Painter answered that the agency would not request that. He detailed that the legislature had the ability to appropriate whatever amount it saw fit. 1:35:21 PM Co-Chair Johnson asked if the committee could just revert back to the [department's] fiscal note submitted prior to the change made in the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Painter suspected the agency would just repeat its prior fiscal note, but it would be updated for the new bill version. Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 33- LS0271\S.2 (Radford, 5/1/23) (copy on file): Page 3, lines 7 - 22: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill section accordingly. There was an OBJECTION. Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment had no fiscal implications. He believed the amendment promoted good policy and would remove lines 7 through 22 on page 3 of the bill. He detailed that the section directed the court system to not publish anything about the past records of previous convictions for marijuana use on CourtView. He stated the committee had heard from the court system that it was already doing the work. He reasoned that the section was not needed. He was in full support of the bill and he thought it should be made as simple as possible. He suggested avoiding telling a separate body of government what it should or should not do when it had already taken the necessary action. 1:38:01 PM Co-Chair Foster noted that the sponsor had reached out and requested that the language remain in the bill. He asked Mr. Riordian-Randall if the bill sponsor was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Riordian-Randall agreed. Representative Ortiz asked Mr. Riordian-Randall to elaborate on why the bill sponsor was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Riordian-Randall believed the reasoning was that the language in the bill would codify the directive in statute. He explained that though the court system was currently in favor of taking the same action, what a future administration would do was not known. Co-Chair Foster summarized his understanding of the issue. He believed Representative Ortiz was indicating the court system was a separate body with separation of powers and he perhaps did not want to interfere in another part of government. Whereas the bill sponsor wanted to include the language to be certain. The court system was already removing names, but the bill sponsor wanted to include the language to make sure it was the case going forward. 1:39:45 PM Representative Galvin asked for comment from the court system. NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, understood the bill sponsor wanted to keep the language in the bill as a belt and suspender approach. She detailed that as she had previously testified, the court system would prefer to see the language removed to avoid establishing additional precedent that the legislature had the ability to tell the court system what to put on its own website. Additionally, the court system found the language unnecessary because it had already removed the cases [online]. That being said, she did not vigorously oppose the language and it was the committee's call. She highlighted that the court system viewed CourtView and what was posted on the site as its purview, just like the legislature put what it wanted on BASIS. She stated that the legislature had done it before and putting the language in statute was the legislature's prerogative. Representative Josephson directed a question to Ms. Meade. He remarked that lines 17 to 19 suggested a "wink-wink hey red flag here, we took something down and you may want to look into this." He asked if his interpretation was accurate. Ms. Meade replied that she did not believe it was what was meant, and it was not what the court did. She explained that CourtView contained a notice specifying that many categories of cases were not on the website, and it was not to be used as an official criminal history background check. The website directed users to the Department of Public Safety for the official criminal history background check information. The website also showed 15 categories of cases the court removed. The list included records of marijuana convictions for individuals over the age of 21 with no other criminal charges in the case. For example, the court did not put "State versus Josephson (case removed)" because it was marijuana. 1:43:13 PM Representative Hannan asked about Ms. Meade's statement that the legislature had directed the court on CourtView in the past. She asked how many places in statute the legislature directed the court system on Courtview. Ms. Meade answered that in 2015 the legislature passed a law specifying under AS 22.35 that the court system shall not publish on a publicly available internet site criminal cases that end with a dismissal or acquittal of all charges. She explained that the court had not previously done so because the court believed it appeared not to be a straightforward easy call that people should not get these. She relayed that the legislature had vigorously debated both sides of whether it should be happening. She elaborated that the supreme court did not take that step because it felt it was too controversial. The court followed the statute after the legislature implemented the law. Later under SB 91, the legislature had established a new way of disclosing cases called a suspended entry of judgement (SEJ) where if a person pled guilty, they got time to go through a probationary period. She explained that if the individual did everything right, the judgement was not entered. The SEJ statute specified that if the individual did everything right, a judgement would not be entered and the court system would remove the record from CourtView. She noted the court system had 15 categories it took off of CourtView. 1:45:24 PM The OBJECTION was MAINTAINED. Representative Ortiz provided wrap up on Amendment 2. He reiterated his full support for the bill. He explained that the purpose behind Amendment 2 was to promote good policy and the idea that the legislature should not step in where it did not need to step in, particularly on another branch of government. He stated that the legislature valued the separation of powers in relationship to the court system and administration and the legislature should show it was only attempting to direct policy when needed. He remarked that the legislature would not necessarily feel good about the court system stepping into the legislature's purview when it was not needed. He stated the language was not needed in the bill and the issue was already being taken care of. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Galvin, Hannan OPPOSED: Stapp, Tomaszewski, Coloumbe, Cronk, Edgmon, Foster, Johnson The MOTION FAILED (4/7). Co-Chair Foster noted the amendment process was concluded. Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 28(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 28(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Public Safety and one previously published zero note: FN1 (AJS).