SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING  5:27:45 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places; relating to education on the smoking prohibition; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was HCS CSSB 63(JUD).] 5:28:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, as a working document. REPRESENTATIVE KITO objected. 5:28:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated concern about the "opt out" provision, the removal of vaping and e-cigarettes, and the removal of marijuana regulation. He said these issues were discussed in other committees, agreements were made, and there was enough support for "the bill as it sits on the House floor." He stated he does not appreciate the changes under Version L being proposed at this late date. 5:29:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD echoed Representative Kito's comments. 5:29:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT spoke about committee process, and he stated that while he may not agree with the proposed version of the bill, there is nothing wrong with the process that was used to create it. 5:30:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, "I lost count awhile back of how many constituents were asking for some of these exact changes, so, I'm glad that we're discussing them tonight." 5:30:28 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Claman, Stutes, Chenault, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt the proposed HCS for CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, as a working document. Representatives Reinbold and Kito voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 5-2, Version L was before the committee as a working document. 5:31:02 PM COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State Legislature, explained Version L offers three substantive changes. It would: allow municipalities to opt out and allow established villages to go through a process to petition for a self-regulation and opt-out provision; remove vaping and e- cigarettes from regulation under SB 63; and remove regulation of marijuana from the purview of the smoke-free workplace bill. 5:31:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT observed there was no fiscal note accompanying the proposed legislation. MS. ENRIGHT responded, "I believe the department is working on an updated fiscal note, perhaps for the Rules' CS, but I don't have any reason to believe that these changes would necessarily add a fiscal cost. I don't know." REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he had been told that. He noted that someone had written a letter of concern to him. He said [Senator Micciche], prime sponsor, had told him that the state would not have to provide signs. Conversely, he cited language on page 6, line 9, which read as follows: (c) The department shall furnish signs required under this section to a person who requests them with the intention of displaying them. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he does not know what that cost is but had heard it could be as high as $20,000. He said he would like to know how much the State of Alaska would have to pay. 5:33:31 PM CHAIR LEDOUX indicated that she shares Representative Chenault's concerns, which were discussed at length in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She said the bill sponsor has said the bill has such a light enforcement footprint that it would not cost the state anything. She said she has many concerns regarding the proposed legislation and is extending an olive branch by proposing Version L so that a "reasonable form" of the legislation can make it to the House floor. 5:34:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for confirmation that under Version L, vaping and marijuana would be allowed in the workplace and opt-outs would gut the bill. 5:34:42 PM MS. ENRIGHT said she would not speak to the third part, because she said that is a policy call for the committee. She continued as follows: But I will say that this doesn't speak necessarily to every work place; it says that vaping and marijuana usage are not going to be regulated under SB 63, as it is currently. There may be other provisions in other parts of law that can speak to those issues. In fact, I know that there are pieces of legislation before the body that address that, but that is what this bill does: it removes vaping and it removes marijuana from the purview of this legislation. 5:35:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT proffered that there are a lot of reasons someone cannot have a tobacco shop next to a mall, for example, if the ventilation system is shared. He posed a scenario where "a marijuana place" and "a tobacco place" are next to each other, and he said, "I don't know what regulations apply to that." CHAIR LEDOUX responded, "Well, I guess we have a [Department of Environmental Conservation] (DEC) that might come up for some." 5:36:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that there had been discussions about an opt-in clause, which would have required anybody who wanted to have a smoke-free workplace to opt in, which would require each municipality to vote to participate. He clarified that the opt-out clause means the provision would be statewide except for those municipalities that vote to opt out. He said he doesn't think it would gut the bill. 5:37:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD ask if the opting out would have to be done via election or formal voting process. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered yes. 5:37:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30- LS0024\L.1, Martin, 4/10/18, which read as follows: Page 4, lines 16 - 21: Delete all material and insert: "(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section, an individual may smoke at (1) a private club if the private club (A) has been in continuous operation at the same location since January 1, 2017; (B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic beverages; and (C) is not a place of employment; or (2) a business or place of employment that is (A) operated or staffed entirely by volunteers; (B) a sole proprietorship; or (C) operated or staffed entirely by the immediate family members of the owner; in this subparagraph, "immediate family member" means a spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild, stepparent, stepchild, or stepsibling." Page 12, line 12: Delete "or works for a business as a volunteer without compensation" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 1. He said if Amendment 1 passes, he would gladly [not offer] Amendments 2 and 3. He said some people have accused SB 63 of being a bill to ban smoking outright. He said the primary concern of the bill is to ban smoking in workplaces, because "the relationship between employers and employees is distinct and significant" and if employees must, as a condition of their jobs, endure a smoke- filled workplace, then they are put at a disadvantage. He said Amendment 1 would remove from the bill "those workplaces that aren't workplaces" and have no employees. He recommended those who want to ban smoking outright vote against Amendment 1 while those who want to protect employees vote for it. He indicated some examples of situations in which there are no employees: only volunteers working; a sole proprietorship with no employees; and only family members working together. He said Amendment 1 would protect volunteers, because "the volunteer relationship is ... distinctly different than the employer/employee relationship." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there are volunteers who smoke and are willing to "give up their time without any kind of compensation," and without Amendment 1, those volunteers are being told, "If you want to smoke then we don't want your volunteer time; you'll have to go somewhere else." He concluded, "And if you have a situation where volunteers are all choosing to smoke and there's no pressure put on anyone to do so, then I think we should recognize that we do value their time and their opportunity to serve, and this simply clarifies that they can continue to do so under this bill." CHAIR LEDOUX said she supports Amendment 1, because it clarifies that sole proprietors and volunteers are not covered by the bill. She offered her understanding that SB 63 is not intended to ban smoking but to make sure that employees have a healthful workplace. 5:41:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that Amendment 1 is poor policy and would not provide any protection of employees. He said under Amendment 1, when there is a sole proprietor of a bar, anyone could smoke at the bar. 5:42:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated opposition to Amendment 1, because she said she doesn't know how such a provision could even be enforced. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in recognition of the comments that had been made, offered a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1, which would - following "a sole proprietorship;" - change "or" to "and". He said with this change "the situation put forward by Representative Claman would, in fact, not be the case" and "the only types of sole proprietorships that we're talking about in the amendment are those that fall under the other categories." 5:43:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated, "Since that completely resolves the original concern, I have to conclude ... that the intent is simply to ban smoking outright, and that is not something that I support or that my constituents support, so I will be supporting the amendment." 5:44:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she does not believe that voting no [on Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1] means smoking would be banned "in every private place and household and everything." 5:44:36 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Representatives Reinbold, Claman, and Stutes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3. 5:45:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1. 5:45:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as follows: Page 4, lines 16 - 21: Delete all material and insert: "(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section, an individual may smoke at (1) a private club if the private club (A) has been in continuous operation at the same location since January 1, 2017; (B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic beverages; and (C) is not a place of employment; or (2) a business or place of employment that is a sole proprietorship and is operated or staffed entirely by the immediate family members of the sole proprietor; in this paragraph, "immediate family member" means a spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild, stepparent, stepchild, or stepsibling." 5:46:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD called a point of order. She said amendments must be timely, germane, and not dilatory, and she opined that both Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 [not yet offered] were dilatory. She asked that Chair LeDoux rule Amendments 1 and 2 out of order. CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she did not believe they were out of order. 5:46:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 2. He said it focuses on family and sole proprietorships - not on volunteers. 5:46:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated opposition to Amendment 2. 5:46:58 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2. Representatives Reinbold, Claman, and Stutes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3. 5:47:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as follows: Page 4, lines 16 - 21: Delete all material and insert: "(g) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section, an individual may smoke at (1) a private club if the private club (A) has been in continuous operation at the same location since January 1, 2017; (B) is not licensed to serve alcoholic beverages; and (C) is not a place of employment; or (2) a business or place of employment that is operated or staffed entirely by volunteers." Page 12, line 12: Delete "or works for a business as a volunteer without compensation" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected and called a point of order. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said, "I'll join Representative Reinbold's point of order." REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that it is clear the amendments are almost identical. She added, "I do believe this is dilatory and wasting precious time." CHAIR LEDOUX responded that the point of order was not accepted. 5:48:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 3. He said it would focus on volunteers. He stated that if committee members want to recognize that volunteers are not employees, then he asks them to support Amendment 3 in recognition that "the focus of this bill is - as it ought to be - focusing on workplaces and employees and employers." 5:48:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated, "There is nothing ... that says you want to ban smoking outright everywhere." She opined, "So, once again, that is an absurd ... interpretation, and that is not how I read this at all." 5:49:14 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Eastman, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3. Representatives Stutes, Reinbold, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-3. 5:49:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HCS CSSB 63, Version 30- LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying previous fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 5:50:06 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Chenault, Reinbold, and LeDoux voted in favor of the motion to report HCS CSSB 63, Version 30-LS0024\L, Martin, 4/9/18, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying previous fiscal notes. Representatives Stutes and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 63(RLS) was reported out of the House Rules Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.