SB 206-VEHICLE REGIS/LICENSING/ACCIDENT REPORTS  9:21:40 AM CHAIR DYSON announced the consideration of SB 206. 9:21:45 AM SENATOR GIESSEL moved that the CS for SB 206, version 28- LS1531\U, be adopted as the committee's working document. CHAIR DYSON asked if there is an objection. SENATOR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. 9:22:17 AM SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, SB 206 sponsor. 9:22:20 AM LARRY SEMMENS, Staff, Senator Micciche, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska. SENATOR MICCICHE said in response to previous discussions at the last meeting, changes were made and Mr. Semmens will review the CS. MR. SEMMENS reviewed the CS as follows: Page 3, line 25, we changed the unconditional discharge language to conviction. On page 4, section 7, line 31, this is a new section that a license issued under this section expires unless renewed within five years after the date of its issuance, that is to allow the department to review current applicants or current holders of school bus driver licenses; currently that license does not expire, once it is obtained it stays, so this would give the department an opportunity to review those at least every five years. Section J, page 5, line 5, this is a new section that requires the holder of a school bus driver license to self-report in the event that they are convicted under any of these sections. Section K, page 5, line 8, this gives the department discretion in situations where persons convicted of a misdemeanor, but if the misdemeanor does not involve a child, it gives the department discretion to grant the license. 9:24:26 AM SENATOR COGHILL asked for the Alaska Department of Law (ADOL) to address applicability issues. SENATOR MICCICHE replied that Amy Erickson from the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Anne Carpeneti from ADOL will address applicability. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for an explanation on the changes made in section 7, page 4, line 31. SENATOR MICCICHE responded that licensing does not expire in the current statute. He explained that the change provides an expiration and allows DMV to review a driver's background. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the change means a reapplication for a license requires an individual to get another eye exam. SENATOR COGHILL specified that the section in question pertains to page 4, subsection I. He noted that he agrees with Senator Wielechowski's inquiry regarding the requirement for renewal and an eye exam. 9:27:05 AM AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Alaska Department of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska, answered that having a five year renewal allows DMV to review background checks to determine disqualification if SB 206 passes. She noted that DMV does not store background records. She added that finger prints are forwarded to the Department of Public Safety and all background records are destroyed. She pointed out that DMV has no way of going back to review School Bus "S" endorsements to determine disqualification if SB 206 passes. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked to verify that the change only applies to people who have bus driver licenses. MS. ERICKSON answered correct. SENATOR MICCICHE added that the entire section only relates to bus driver licenses. CHAIR DYSON confirmed that the section applies to school bus drivers and not tour, city, or senior citizen bus drivers. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a person has to pay for their eye exam or background check. MS. ERICKSON replied yes. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the fees are. MS. ERICKSON replied that fees will range between $10 and $50. She added that DMV does not charge for eye exams. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if SB 206 has a zero fiscal note and will DMV incur any charges. MS. ERICKSON replied that DMV does not incur any charges. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked to clarify that DMV does not incur charges in the entire bill. MS. ERICKSON answered that the bill will allow DMV to realize savings from online transactions. CHAIR DYSON asked if a mechanism exists in the state where a licensing agency is notified when an individual with a professional license is convicted of a crime that would disqualify them. 9:30:07 AM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, State of Alaska Department of Law (ADOL), Juneau, Alaska, replied that she did not know. She addressed a situation with licensed lawyers and surmised that a mechanism for agency notification must be in place. CHAIR DYSON added that there must be an agency notification process for doctors as well. MS. CARPENETI offered that she would have to check on the notification process and get back to the committee. CHAIR DYSON remarked that he believes there is no notification process. MS. CARPENETI noted that she did not recall, but she may have to submit a disclosure statement when paying her annual lawyer dues. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI addressed page 4, line 31 and asked how bus drivers in rural Alaska will be impacted if they do not have access to a local DMV office. MS. ERICKSON replied that she does not know where the bus driver licensees reside. She said she will have to see if licensee locations can be determined. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Senator Olson or Senator Hoffman will ask about the bill's impact on rural Alaska. SENATOR COGHILL suggested asking the Anchorage-DMV on the bill's effect on rural Alaska. SENATOR MICCICHE stated that there currently is no way to look back once someone has a school bus endorsement to address a prior conviction. He said SB 206 will allow the following: At least what this bill does is the longest you can go is five years without someone having knowledge, if this were to pass, without someone having knowledge that you are someone that would be a risk to children. CHAIR DYSON offered that SB 206 may not solve the more global problem, but may make an improvement. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how SB 206 will impact rural Alaska if an eye exam and background check is required when an individual does not have access to a DMV office. 9:33:27 AM JOANNE OLSEN, Operations Manager, Division of Motor Vehicles, Alaska Department of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska, replied that DMV does accept eye exams from physicians to accommodate people in rural areas. SENATOR GIESSEL addressed Chair Dyson's question pertaining to self-disclosure in other professions. She noted that medical professionals have a biennial application that requires self- disclosure which may result in a judgment against one's license. SENATOR COGHILL noted that "unconditional discharge" was taken out of section 4, pages 3 and 4. He asked if removing "unconditional discharge" and leaving the applicant's date of first conviction was a good moment in history to make the judgment call on. MS. CARPENETI replied that date of conviction should be defined because the date of conviction can be several things under law. She offered that date of conviction could be the date of finding of guilt in a jury trial or it could be the date the sentence was imposed. She set forth that the date of conviction was generally defined as the date the sentence is imposed. She continued as follows: You can make that as a statement of your intent here in this committee that that is what you are intending that date to be, or you could, maybe possibly considering down the line, writing that down what the conviction means in this context. For example in theft, your third theft conviction in a five year period is a one jump up from what it would normally be. In Title 11 we say the date of conviction for purposes of these statutes is the date that sentence was imposed. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI addressed the applicability section on page 7. He asked if there were constitutional implications by applying the changes to offenses committed before the effective date. 9:36:30 AM MS. CARPENETI answered that she does not think so because the statutes promote the health and safety of children. She noted that Senator Wielechowski's question was good because constitutional issues will arise in terms of ex post facto. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired if the U.S. Supreme Court said you could go back and require sex offenders to register before the date the law passed. MS. CARPENETI answered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that registering prior to the date a law passes was allowed. She countered that the Alaska Supreme Court stated that registering prior to a law going into effect was a violation of ex post facto and the state does not go back before 1994. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the same applies to SB 206. MS. CARPENETI answered that she did not think so because dealing with school bus drivers was in the interest of child safety. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked DMV about the practicability of applying section 7 and the impact on 1000 bus drivers. MS. ERICKSON replied that DMV would need to run a computer search to identify "S" endorsements. She said DMV would create a process to notify licensees that endorsements will expire and the requirements for renewal. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a fiscal note to address what Ms. Erickson described. MS. ERICKSON replied that because SB 206 was not adopted, she did not look deeper and does not currently have an answer. SENATOR COGHILL asked Ms. Carpeneti to address the self- reporting applicability in section 7, subsection J. MS. CARPENETI surmised that the section appears to refer to convictions in the future due to having a timeline for 30 days from the date of conviction. She explained as follows: You can't expect somebody to report that if the law was now in effect at the time 30 days after that person's conviction. I think this was intended to apply to convictions in the future. 9:39:56 AM SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows: I took that the same way too until I read the applicability section that says on, before, or after. So then, certainly I think probably would be quite a cleanup thing if anybody had any convictions under some of these new laws, they would now have to know it and report it. He asked if his previous statement was true. MS. CARPENETI answered yes. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what would happen if a bus driver with 30 years of experience reports something from 31 years in the past. He inquired if the bus driver would be fired for something that occurred prior to being a bus driver. MS. ERICKSON replied that DMV would be able to cancel their license. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if DMV would "be able to" or "be required to." MS. ERICKSON responded that DMV would "be required to." SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the look-back is indefinite. CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti to explain her previous comment where the committee might want to put in its intent. MS. CARPENETI replied as follows: In terms of your intent, in subsection J on page 5, line 5, the 30 day requirement for reporting a conviction would be, I am assuming, for convictions that are happening after the effective date of the act, but it is important that whatever intention you have, it is on the record and or even better in the legislation. 9:42:09 AM SENATOR COGHILL addressed pages 3 and 4, line 25. He noted that the "day of conviction" replaced "unconditional discharge." He detailed that a conviction would be either sentencing or the day of conviction. He set forth that judgment of conviction is reasonable, but noted that sentencing really tells the whole story if there are mitigating factors. He said the committee needs to decide on conviction upon sentencing or judgment before sentencing. MS. CARPENETI replied that Senator Coghill's statement is the reason why the date of sentencing is the one chosen for look- backs. She asserted that a date of sentencing is the moment when an individual undergoes a program for society. CHAIR DYSON stated that no matter what happens in a sentencing, the conviction has already happened. He added that a conviction does not get bargained down to a lesser offense. He asked why the sentencing date would be more significant. MS. CARPENETI replied that the date of sentencing is generally used for look-backs similar to the one proposed in SB 206. 9:44:48 AM CHAIR DYSON commented that using the conviction date allows for a look-back that goes further back. He said sentencing is often weeks or months after a conviction. MS. CARPENETI remarked that the offenses being addressed are misdemeanors. She asserted that sentencing is often not months afterwards and occurs much closer to the time of the determination of guilt. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI addressed page 3, section 4, lines 9 and 10. He noted a possible scenario where a bus driver is fired due to a delinquency of minor charge that occurred 30 years in the past. 9:46:12 AM SENATOR MICCICHE replied that the section referred to is not a change and is currently in the law. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he believes the law is a little extreme. He asserted that a school bus driver can be fired if convicted 10 to 30 years in the past. SENATOR MICCICHE stated that he would be willing to bring it down to the misdemeanor section, but insisted that the section in the bill is applicable. 9:46:49 AM CHAIR DYSON declared that the committee will stand at ease. 9:57:28 AM CHAIR DYSON called the committee back to order. He announced that SB 206 will be held in committee and heard again at the next committee meeting. 9:57:50 AM CHAIR DYSON declared an initial adjournment. 9:57:59 AM CHAIR DYSON called the committee back to order and announced that public testimony [for SB 206] is closed.