Good afternoon.
I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order at 1.32
p.m.
We are in Belts Room 105 at the Thomas Stewart Building in the nation's most beautiful foggy
capital city of Juneau, Alaska.
Today is Friday, February 6th.
Members present are Senator Merrick, Senator Dunbar, senator Ray Jackson, and Senator
Yount, And myself, Sen. Bjorkman.
Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct a business.
Welcome everyone.
to the Senate Labor and Commerce.
Please turn off or silence your cell phones
and join me in extending a warm
Senate labor and commerce welcome
to our recording secretary, Carrie Tupoe,
and her LAO moderator, Chloe Miller.
We have three items on our agenda today.
First, Senate bill 211,
extending occupational licensing boards.
There are six of them
that we are looking to extend
with that piece of legislation.
Followed by Senate Bill 225, trusts, trust proceedings.
And trustees, rounding out our lineup is Senate bill 198,
purrs, turs, retirement, and medical eligibility.
First up, Senate, bill 211.
Sir third hearing on the bill previous hearings. We have had the initial presentation of the Bill
We adopted a committee substitute heard from our friendly legislative auditor as well as the chairs of some boards
Today it is my intention to take invited
testimony from the remaining board chairs and complete public testimony and then
have committee discussion
Take up a possible amendment and look to the will of The Committee
Here with us today to provide a brief recap of the bill my staffer
Sir Matt Churchill Esquire
Mr. Churchill
Welcome to St. Labor to Commerce, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your brief recap of
The bill. Thank you chair of Bjorkman
Again, Matt church Hill, and I'm Stafford senator Bjarkman. I thank you members the Labor and Commerce Committee for hearing Senate bill 211
again today. This bill again extends the sunset dates of six professional boards
that are set to expire on June 30th of this year.
This Bill follows the extensions recommended for each of them in the state's 2025 audits
as you heard from our auditor. Chris Curtis is again with us today to answer any questions
And also today, there will be invited testimony from the chairs of the boards.
We have Crystal Herring for the professional counselors and Noah Shields for
the marital and family counseling board and Cheryl Markwood, the certified real estate appraisers.
Thank you again for hearing Senate Bill 211 today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Churchill.
We now have some invited testimony from the chairs
of the Board of Professional Counselors,
Board on Meridol and Family Therapy,
and the Real Estate Commission.
First up is Crystal Herring, Ms. Hering.
Welcome to Senate Labor and Commerce.
Please state your name, affiliation for the record,
and begin your presentation.
Hi, thank you so much for the record.
My name is Crystal Herring and I served as chair
for The Alaska Board of Professional Counselors.
Thank you for opportunity to speak with you today
in support of SB 211,
which would extend the board following a sunset review.
The Board and Professional counselors exist
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Alaskans
by ensuring that individuals providing
professional counseling services
are qualified, competent, and help the consistent ethical standards.
Professional counselors provide critical mental health services across Alaska,
including in rural and underserved communities.
These services support individuals, families, veterans, first responders,
and youth and are often a frontline response to trauma, substance use
disorders, behavioral health crises.
story responsibilities include licensing professional counselors, establishing education and supervision
requirements, adopting and enforcing a professional code of ethics, and ensuring ongoing competency
through continuing education. These functions are essential to public protection. They ensure
that counseling services in Alaska are delivered by trained ethical and accountable professionals,
The board also adopts and updates regulations to reflect statutory changes, best practice,
and evolving service delivery models, such as telehealth, which has greatly expanded
access to care across our state.
Without a dedicated regulatory board, specialized oversight of professional counseling would
be diminished, reducing accountability and public protection at a time when demand for
mental health services continues to grow.
While you may have noted that the audit recommends a six-year extension rather than the full
eight years due to administrative factors outside the board's control, we respectfully
request your support of SB 211 to include a full extension of the Board of Professional
Counselors so that we may continue providing stable and effective oversight in the public
interest.
Thank you for your time and I am happy to answer any questions if I can.
Ms. Herring, thank you very much for your presentation today. Are there any questions or comments from committee members for Ms Herrring?
Thank you again for joining us ma'am. We'll go now to Noah Shields. Mr. Shields, would you state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please?
Yes, my name is Noah Shield
N-O-A-H, Shields-S- H-I-E-L-B-F.
And I am the chair of the Alaska
Board of Maryland Family Therapy.
Very well, thank you.
Could you begin your testimony, please?
Yes, through this chair,
thank for the opportunity to speak today.
The Board on Maryland family therapy exists
to protect the public by ensuring
that individuals providing
Meet consistent, rigorous standards for education, training, ethical practice, and professional accountability.
Our work supports both public safety and access to quality mental health care through consistent
licensure standards, clear expectations for practice and accountability for licensees.
Miracles and family therapists often work with children, families, a crisis, individuals experiencing
Because of this, the board's role in oversight, licensure, and enforcement has a direct impact
on the safety and well-being of Alaskans. In recent years,
the Board has engaged in ongoing regulations projects within its authority to ensure that Alaska's
requirements for licensures, supervision, professional conduct,
and continuing education remain current with national professional standards and the evolving
needs of Alaska.
This includes regularly reviewing and updating regulations to clarify expectations for licensees,
support safe clinical practice, modernized language that was updated,
and ensure that new professionals entering the field are prepared to provide competent care.
The board also plays a key role in reviewing applications, monitoring compliance with licensing
requirements, and addressing complaints. To timely case review, appropriate discipline action
the standards for safe and ethical practice are upheld. Through this consistent regulatory
work and oversight, the Board helps ensure that Alaskans receive care from qualified,
well-trained, and accountable professionals. For this reason, we respect clear your support for
SB 211 to extend the board of marital family therapy. Continuation of the
Board ensures that this essential work in public protection, professional accountability,
and maintaining up-to-date professional standards can continue without interruption.
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields. Are there any questions or comments from committee members for Mr
Shields and the board of marital and family services?
Hearing and seeing none, we will go next to Cheryl Markwood. Ms. Mark would you please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation?
Good afternoon, everyone
My name is Cheryl Markwood. I am the chair of the Alaska Real Estate Commission.
Through the Chair,
I'd like to take this opportunity to speak in support of SB 211 and the extension of
the Real estate Commission, the real estate commission plays a critical role in protecting the public,
maintaining professional standards and ensuring confidence in one of
the largest financial transactions most Alaskans will ever make.
the purchase of, say, or sale of real estate property.
Real estate impacts housing availability, economic stability,
lending, development, property rights,
and property management. Effective oversight matters.
The commission's responsibilities are clear and longstanding.
We provide licensing qualified professionals
enforcing statutes and regulations.
investigations, complaints and taking disciplinary action when warranted and providing guidance
and education to promote compliance. These duties cannot be effectively absorbed elsewhere without
loss of expertise or increased costs and they are best carried out by a board dedicated solely
to this industry. Regarding the commission's most recent sunset audit, we take these findings
The audit process is an important accountability tool and the commission has worked collaboratively
with staff and a division to address recommendations, strengths, and internal processes,
and improve consistency, particularly in the documentation and procedural clarification.
Importantly, the audit did not identify any systematic failures or public risk
that would justify discontinuing this commission.
Instead, it confirms that the commission is functioning as intended and fulfilling its statutory role.
The Alaska real estate market also presents unique challenges, including remote transactions, rural land issues, seasonal market pressures, and housing supply constraints.
The commission provides Alaska specific oversight informed by knowledge and local expertise.
extending the Alaska Real Estate Commission
under SB 211 ensures continued consumer protection
regarding stability and institutional knowledge
while preserving legislative oversight
through the sunset process.
I thank you for your time and your consideration,
and we hope that you'll continue ensuring
that the Alaskan Real estate commission is extended.
Thank you.
Thank-you very much, Ms. Markwood.
Are there any questions or comments from committee members?
Hearing and seeing none that wraps up our slate of invited testifiers for today
At this time I'll open public testimony on Senate bill 211
There anyone in the room or online who would wish to provide some public testimony to this item
Hearing and seeing none at this time I will close public testimony on Senate bill 211
Is there any committee discussion?
Senator Dunbar mr. Chair I'd like to move an amendment this. Time
All right, well I I move amendment n.2
Object for purposes of discussion
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everyone should have a copy on their desk.
We've been working with the auditor, Ms. Curtis.
If Mr Chair, if Ms Curtis might be able to come forward,
we could speak a little to this
while she's getting said all I'll just say.
There were two boards that we identified
as having deficits that had, I think at least one case
recommended a increase in their fees
that went through a new process,
and they denied those fee increases.
I don't think that is best practices.
And so I initially intended to shorten the period
with which we extend those boards to send a message.
However, in speaking with Ms. Curtis
and from the discussions we had last time,
we felt that wasn't the appropriate recommendation,
particularly given that the boards
Appear to have done the right thing and perhaps they shouldn't be punished for something outside their control
So we work with miss Curtis on this language, which would add a reporting requirement
Basically halfway through the extended board period
And I'll add I also have a conceptual amendment because there's a small
textual error before that mr. Chair if Miss Curtis could maybe speak a little bit to this
Thank You senator Dunbar
Ms. Curtis, welcome back to Senate Labor in Commerce.
Please state your name for the record
and provide us with some color around this amendment, please.
Absolutely.
For the Record, my name is Chris Curtis.
I'm your state legislative auditor.
So this Amendment is aimed at ensuring
legislative oversight of corrective action
for recommendations that you find in the sense
that out of reports.
Technically, it will be the year before the first day of the, what, 36 legislative legislature.
So that will, we do the oddest year, before.
So during 2028,
we will do limited work specifically aimed at whether the boards and
the department have addressed the findings that are in the audit report.
So this work will not be a full audit.
It will be a limited review.
It'll be much more efficient and focused.
And then we will present to the LB&A committee a report
or probably more like a memo.
Summarizing the current status of those recommendations
and making additional recommendations if necessary.
That is to ensure that.
we continue to keep an eye on those recommendations
in a more timely manner.
So again, the way that it's worded right now
will have us go be going in in 2028.
Limited review, these are not audits and accordance
with standards,
these just focused corrective action type procedures
on the audits recommendations that you see listed.
And I believe the first day,
that before the 36 legislative session would be
20.
So two more years from here, I think it would be 2029
Yes, so next year is 20 said yes, it'd be twenty twenty nine January whatever 15th to 20 29
So we would do in the work in 2028
There are any questions for miss Curtis
Mr.. Chair I also need to make a conceptual amendment to the amendment one moment, okay?
I have one question. Are you are you comfortable doing that?
Yes through the chair. I absolutely I think it's um a very cost effective way at ensuring corrective action
Most excellent. Okay.I'll remove my objection
Is there any further objection to amendment n.2?
Mr. Chair
One moment. We'll adopt the amendment, and then I'll have you make a conceptual amendment to it
I
Think we have let me think here
I'm trying to think of on the assembly would have to amend it first before we adopted it
We have to amendment to the amendment.
We can do it either way.
Okay.
I trust the chair.
Hearing no objection, amendment n.2 is adopted.
Senator Dunbar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I make a conceptual amendment
to The Amendment, adding the word April 17 and to line 14.
And this is because.
The audits took place or were concluded on two different dates April 17th and June 5th, not both on June fifth.
Object in case there's further explanation or discussion needed to conceptual amendment number one.
Ms. Curtis.
Just to clarify, those words go right in front of the word June, 5.
That's right.
I'll remove my objection. Is there any further objection to conceptual amendment number one?
Hearing and seeing none conceptual, amendment, number 1 is adopted.
Is any, further committee discussion?
What are the wishes of the committee?
Mr. Chairman, I move to report committee substitute for Senate Bill 211 version 34-LS 1252 backslash, November
from committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
I also authorize legislative legal to make any conforming and or necessary changes.
Is there any objection?
Hearing and seeing none, committee substitute for Senate bill 211 version 34 dash LS 1252
from committee with individual recommendations
and attached fiscal notes.
We will allow for a ledge legal
to make any necessary and conforming changes.
Take a brief at ease while we set up for the next bill.
It's 154 here at Senate Labor and Commerce.
Next up is Senate Bill 225.
We have here to present this bill,
Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Community
Economic Development, Anna Latham.
This is Lathan.
Welcome to Senate labor and commerce.
Please put yourself on the record
and begin your presentation of this Bill.
Good afternoon, Mrs.
Senator Bjorkman and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.
For the record, my name is Anna Latham.
I'm the Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Commerce Community and Economic Development.
Thank you very much for hearing Senate Bill 225 today.
This is an act relating to trust proceedings relating
to non-judicial settlement agreements and trust matters relating
to the power of trustees and providing for an effective date.
The Department of Commerce is committed to making Alaska a great place to do business
and grow our economy.
Through our Alaska Business Initiative, we're promoting Alaska as the best place
to invest, live, and work.
We're constantly reviewing our processes, our statutes,
and our regulations to make it easier to start and operate a business in Alaska.
With that goal in mind, Commissioner Sandy and I asked our banking and securities team
and make recommendations for improvement.
While Alaska's already a strong competitor
for trust charters, we currently only have
four trust companies, meaning there's room for growth.
Working together with the Department of Law,
the banking and securities team developed several
recommendations to strengthen Alaska legal framework
for chartering trusts.
SB 225 strengthens Alaska Trust Law
by improving privacy protections,
expanding non-judicial settlement authority,
or the ability for parties to settle without going to court, clarifying fiduciary powers,
broadening our decanting statutes, or ability to move assets to a new trust without court
approval, and it provides for stronger asset protection by shortening creditor look-back
SB 225 improves Alaska's trust law by increasing flexibility,
efficiency, privacy, and certainty for settlers, beneficiaries,
and fiduciaries.
And it reduces the administrative and litigation costs while preserving accountability.
And tying this back to our economy, bringing out a state wealth into
Alaska management increases the demand in Alaska financial sector and eventual growth.
So thank you again for scheduling this hearing today,
Thank you very much, Ms. Latham.
Ms Reno, welcome to Santa Barbara Commerce.
We're glad you're here.
Thank You.
Through the chair, for the record, my name is Tracy Reno and I have been with the Division
of Banking and Securities for 14 years, serving as the Director since July of last year.
I'm going to go ahead and read the sectional analysis for you today.
And so we all have a level of understanding.
A trust is a legal arrangement in which a trust grant
were endless a trustee to hold and manage assets
such as money, property, investment securities
on behalf of a Trust beneficiary or beneficiaries.
Trusts are an estate planning tool
that allows individuals to protect and control
their assets both during their lifetime
as well as after death and have existed in some form
since the 12th century.
Some of the language you will hear today in this bill is very technical and includes amendments drafted for Alaska's unique trust laws related to a legal instrument or trust.
In honor of your time, I'm going to read a short version of this sectional.
If there's a section you like me to dive deeper in, please let me know.
Section one, page one.
One moment.
Yes.
Thank you for that.
We always appreciate abbreviated section, sectionals like this.
It's pretty detailed.
I'm wondering if you could present for the committee some real-world examples of like where this would apply like
What what are we what? Are we talking about here?
Maybe if we could have kind of that understanding and connection to something we might be able to identify with we
Could plug in parts of this sectional better into our
Yes legislative schema here
So the division of making securities regulates the trust companies chartered in Alaska we
Do not dig into the deep legal instrument language that is more for the Department of Law, which we will have somebody on the call for questions.
But for example, if you wanted to set up a trust for your family, you could set that up.
And the language, that's in this bill, will modernize the Alaska law.
It is old and there's room for modernization.
It's important to Alaskans to have privacy and confidentiality, and so this bill will also allow them to
have that in place similar to some other states.
So we want to be competitive with other States so that people want
to come here and open up a trust and have trust companies that manage them.
So an example would be a family trust where you're setting up generational protection for
generational wealth that will exceed past when you die for maybe your grandchildren, great-grandchildren.
Great, please continue. Thank you
Page one section one amends as 13 36 0 3 5 court jurisdiction choice of law to add a new subsection
J that requires the court to protect the privacy of a settler and the beneficiaries of the non chart
charitable trust in trust proceedings by sealing all court records upon the filing of a petition and limiting access to listed persons.
Section 2, page 2 amends AS1336 Trust Administration to add a new section, AS 1336 057, non-judicial settlement agreements.
allowing indispensable parties to enter into binding non-judicial settlement agreements
on trust administration matters so long as the agreement does not violate a
material purpose of the trust. If requested by an indispensable party these
agreements could be reviewed and approved by a court. The section specifies
matters that can be settled non judicially such as a trust asset use,
trusty actions and trust determination.
Section 3 page 3 amends AS 1336 079 certification of trust penalty.
Subsection J to clarify that the right to obtain a copy of the trust instrument in a judicial proceeding concerning the
Section 4 on page 3 amends AS1336 to add a new section.
AS 1336115, which outlines a procedure for fiduciaries
to notify beneficiaries of proposed trust administration actions.
The notice must include details about the action
and a period for beneficiaries to object.
fiduciaries are projected, excuse me, protected from liability if they comply with the notice requirements.
No objections are raised and the action does not breach a fiduciary duty.
A fidiciary includes trustees, trust protectors and trust advisors acting within their authority.
AS 1336 157, exercise of power of appointment is amended by sections 5 through 12.
Section 5-7 on pages 5 and 6, amend AS 1336-157 to clarify the powers of authorized trustees
in appointing trust principal to new trusts and to adjust statutory language to align
with the amended definition of Authorized Trustee.
and the new definition of ascertainable standard.
These changes allow beneficiary trustees to be authorized trustees.
While the law currently allows a permissible appointee to someone other than a beneficiary of the invaded trust,
the amendments make this more clear in state that a promiscible appointees can include
non-beneficiary persons, holders of a power of appointment,
or the estates or creditors of holder of power appointment.
If beneficiaries are described as a class, new trusts may benefit current or
future members without prematurely adding beneficiaries.
Notably, these changes apply only to trustees with discretionary power that is not limited by an ascertainable standard.
Section 8 on page 6 of the bill amends AS 1336357.
To make conforming languages and to expressly include that a beneficiary trustee may be an authorized trustee that can appoint principle of an invaded trust to a new trust.
It does not amend existing language for providing that trustee with discretionary power that is limited by an ascertainable standard may move principle to new trusts given the beneficiaries remain unchanged.
Section 9 to 12 on pages 6 and 7, further
refine AS1336157 by adding ascertainable before standard and clarifying that
distribution standards can be modified for special needs pooled or third-party
trusts.
They make citation corrections, clarify that new trusts limited by section D or E grant
the same power of appointment as the original trust and accommodate the repeal of subsection
F. New subsection I allows trustees exercising power not limited
by an ascertainable standard to set different income standard distribution standards, assign
principal to special needs, pooled or third party trusts, and adjust mandatory distribution
Section 13 on page 7,
Repeals and Reenacts AS1336158,
Additional Provisions Relating to Exercise of a Power of Appointment,
Subsection C, to state if more than one authorized trustee has discretionary power
to distribute all or part of the trust principle.
An authorized trusty with discretionary
power that is not limited by an ascertainable standard
may exercise the power under AS 1336 157A through C and I.
Section 14, page 7 amends AS 1336158E, additional provisions relating to exercise of a power of appointment by removing the requirement to ascertain a settler's intent while retaining fiduciary requirements of acting in the best interest and a prudent person.
Section 15 page 8 simplifies limitations on an authorized trustee's power to appoint under AS-1336-157
and ensuring a trustee cannot reduce a beneficiary's current right to mandatory distributions
for which a marital deduction has been taken under federal or state law.
The amendment also repeals specific prohibitions and redundant language related to appointments
to special needs pooled or third-party trusts.
Section 16 page 9 amends AS 1336159 implementation of a Power of Appointment, Subsection C.
By clarifying that when an authorized trustee seeks court approval to exercise a power of appointment,
the trustee has the option to send the required notice to all qualified beneficiaries or to a person who can represent and bind a qualified beneficiary under AS 1306120.
Section 17, page 9 amends AS1336159 implementation of power of appointment.
Subsection D by adding the word executed before the reference to the appointed trust and the instrument exercising the power.
sections 18 through 20 on pages 9 and 10 amend or add definitions as in AS 13 36 2 1 5 appointed
Trust is clarified by adding to the description of what new Trust may receive principal from an Invaded Trust
Authorized Trustee is amended and simplified to align with the definition of authorized fiduciary in
The Uniform Trust Decanting Act and to allow a beneficiary trustee to be an authorized trustee
And Section 20 adds definitions for ascertainable standard and beneficiary.
Section 21 on page 10 amends AS 1336370 Trust Protector Subsection B to provide that a trust
protector's powers are conferred by the trust instrument.
May include the power to issue a notice of proposed action under AS1336115.
Section 22 on page 11 amends AS34 or 40 110 restricting transfers of trust
interest subsection D by reducing the time limit for creditors to bring claims
against a settler for fraudulent asset transfers to a trust. For existing
creditors the Time is reduced from four years to one year after the transfer.
From one-year to six months after discovering the Transfer for new
creditors. The Time has reduced for four
Section 23 page 11 amends AS3441-10,
Restricting Transfers of Trust Interests.
Subsection I to clarify that the settler's
solvent CA affidavit is required
at the time of initial funding of the trust.
It additionally clarifies that after initial
funding, the setler may periodically renew
the affidavit to include additional transfers
of assets to the Trust.
However, this settlar is presumed to be solvent
with respect to these transfers.
Section 24 on page 12 repeals AS1336157F159I and 215B10.
Section 25 on Page 12 states that uncodified law of the state of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to clarify that.
AS 1336 157158159 and 2015.
As amended, by this act, apply to a trust that is created on or after the effective date of this Act.
Section 26 on page 12 provides an immediate effective date for this act
Well done, Ms. Reno appreciate that any questions or comments from committee members
Senator Dunbar, I have thank you, mr. Chair
I Have a number of questions, but do we have some additional testimony before that or today or I?
Believe we other people online who are available. Yes,
But not invited testimony
No, we also have some folks that will provide some testimony.
I'll hold my questions till after the testimony then.
Very well, Ms. Latham.
Senator Dunbar, through the chair.
We do have Amy Robinson with Department of Law, who has expertise in this area of law and
will be available for questions as well.
Any other questions?
will go now to Ryan Dukowitz with the Division of Banking and Securities. Mr. Dukeowitz,
please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation.
Thank you. My name is Ryan Dukeowitz. I'm a financial examiner for
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Division
of banking and securities, and I've available to assist with questions.
Looks like Mr. Dukowitz and Ms. Robinson are available for questions, Senator Dunbar.
Thank you, Mr.. Chair
So a few questions here
Some just
For me, but I think also for the public
And I don't know if this question for you or for Department of Law. You use the term ascertainable
What does ascertainible mean in this context?
Senator Dunbar through the chair,
I would defer to Amy Robinson,
a department of law for the best possible answer
for that question.
Ms. Robinson.
Good afternoon for your record.
Please continue.
Thank you.
Thank You.
No problem.
Good Afternoon for The Record.
This is Amy.
Robinson's the Department of Law.
Sorry to repeat my question sir. Thank you, mr. Chair. So in section 9 and elsewhere
We're adding the word ascertainable. What does ascertain able mean in this context?
The chair to Senator Dunbar
The word as retainable is inserted before standards to align the definition that's added at section 20 of the bill
This is a phrase that frequently used in trust documents on this type
And it refers to a provision in the trust or governing
instruments that directs how a trustee can distribute
principal or income of the Trust.
OK, well, I appreciate it.
I didn't see the definition.
I appreciated that.
But can for sort of delay person, what
is the difference between.
What exactly are we doing in section nine by adding ascertainable?
So include the same standard authorizing trustee to distribute the income or the
same ascertain able standard authorizing trustee distribute income.
What is the practical difference between those two terms?
There's a chair, Senator Dunbar, Amy Robinson for the record from the department of law.
So just your question, in section 9, the word ascertainable standard is added primarily to make a
conforming amendment to align with the new definition. But to speak to your
question about what does that really accomplish, what I would say is that the structure of 13.36157
creates two different abilities or trustees to exercise the decanting power. There's trustees
is referenced in subsection A.
They can take actions that are more expansive
and that aren't limited by enough table standards.
However, other trust documents and other trustees
may be limited.
And when they are, the actions
that they take with respect to decanting a trust
has to align with the existing standards
they have to stay the same.
inserting this definition of ascertainable standard.
And because we're not trying to change what powers of what the law currently refers to as having
unlimited discretion, I believe, or limited discretion. The language is shifted. Is that
address your question? I think it did, but it doesn't mean I fully understood it. So I'll have to.
Ask some follow-ups afterwards. I think this is a quite a complicated bill
really highly technical and
I'm going to have to
Have a lot of conversations with the Department of Law and also with a division
Offline, but a couple other policy questions if I may mr. Chair indeed, so
Well first of all is there anyone from the court system here
Yes
Our friendly neighborhood court liaison, Nancy Meade, is here.
Oh, wonderful.
May I speak with Nancy?
Ms. Meede, excuse me, she's in the back there.
Our Friendly Neighborhood Elite Athlete, and court lays on.
Former.
If I may, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dunbar.
Thank you, Mister Chair,
I realize the court doesn't really take policy positions exactly, but
really speak to the impact that they have.
But there are section two, for example, I think there
are several places but section 2 in particular, we're expanding the ability
of folks to have agreements without involving the courts.
Does the Court system have any thoughts on what those impacts might be on the
Through the chair for the record Nancy made general counsel for The Alaska court system
Nonjudicial settlement agreements are really permitted in many many areas because people should agree
When they have disputes without court involvement
I think that it makes sense though
I'm not an expert in trusts to allow people to work out their problems without coming to the court
This does allow one of the parties
who might enter a non-judicial settlement agreement completely
on their own to come in and ask the court to approve it.
I don't know how often that would happen,
but it seems like a sensible provision in my experience.
Follow Mr. Chair?
Yes.
So in other kinds of settlements,
it's sometimes the case that judges find that,
yes, you've reached a settlement,
find that this is unfair or violates the law in some way.
Perhaps there was a large imbalance of power
between the parties, for example.
And it was, I'm forgetting the term now,
but in a contract of adhesion, or whatever I'll call it.
So are there any concerns that that might happen
in this context, that you might have an imbalance in power,
and now the court won't get to see and rule on it?
As I read this section, this allows people to come to agreements about things before a case is even filed in court.
And then after they have an agreement, they may come back on page three, lines three through five, and ask for approval.
And the court would have to determine whether it's something they could have approved.
that they're settling on their own,
which the court always has to approve.
This, in my reading, is just agreeing
on things completely outside of the Court context.
And again, that makes perfect sense to me
to allow people to do that.
Very good.
Okay, thank you.
That's all the questions I had for the courtroom.
Thank you, Ms. Mead.
Before you go, I'm sincere here.
Thank for joining us.
Do you have any concerns with this piece of legislation?
To the chair, I have discussed a few very small changes with the Department of Law.
We're working on those, we're talking about whether some of the thoughts I had might be acceptable and
not impact their policy calls in this bill.
They're very minor, and they're something that I think will be worked out.
Most excellent, thank you.
Any additional questions or comments?
Senator Dunner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for dominating this conversation a little bit.
Section one, regarding the privacy of the settler and the beneficiaries.
And there's talk of generational wealth in this bill.
I'm wondering if someone from the Department of Division could speak to, it's said here.
in that supporting documents that other states do this,
can we have some examples how many other
states to it this way and sort of which states?
Senator Dunbar through the chair,
I'm aware of Wyoming and South Dakota,
there may be additional states as well.
Only Wyoming in South Dakota,
I am sorry you said there are additional
states but would you say a majority of states
do it have these kind of provisions?
Senator Dunbar, through the chair, I'm not aware of a majority of states having these
provisions.
However, these provisions do make those states the most attractive states to file a trust
because they allow for personal privacy of the trust.
And when you say personal private, what do you mean exactly?
So in the initial creation,
what exactly is normally public that is now made private?
Senator Dunbar, through the chair, I will defer to law to clean up this, but if that
anything that's filed would be available in a court of law, so sealing these records
make them unavailable for the public.
And if Amy Robinson has additional comments,
I defer her as well.
So, Mr. Robinson, what are the kind of things that would be protected here?
Are we talking about, for example, the dollar amount?
Would that usually become public in a courtroom?
How much money is going into this trust?
And then now we are removing that from public view, or is it a different kind
of fact or information that is being sealed here.
For the record, Amy Robinson, the department of law through the chair to Senator Dunbar,
the type of information that would be made confidential through this change relates
a lot to section 1336 035A, and this is the
type out the action that can be brought onto the section and those are the types that
through the new provision, and to address your question
about finances, yes, is that more finances
and or the assets that the trust would be shielded
if they are the subject of the court action?
Similarly, there are eight, pardon me?
No one spoke, ma'am.
I'm sorry, I thought that might be another question.
No, you can continue.
Thank you, Chair Druckman.
To continue the only other insight I might add is that the text of trust that these would typically apply to our irrevocable trust.
So either the cent laws are live and they potentially have a significant amount of wealth in the same as families.
And they would like to be able to settle disputes outside of the public eye.
Yes, Senator Dunbar.
I guess this isn't a question for today, this is more common than if the department wants
to come back with thoughts at a later date, but I would argue, you know, we've seen an
incredible concentration of wealth in this country, and I think there's a reason that
of states have taken this approach.
I think there is a public interest
in knowing when a huge amount of wealth changes hands
or goes behind an irrevocable trust.
And traditionally, some of those things
have been through court records.
It's not splashed across newspaper headlines,
although it might, if you look at something like
the Murdochs fighting over control
of Fox News or something, like that.
But I do think that less and less information
wealth shifting within our society,
reduces the ability of people to understand
what's actually going on.
I would assume that it doesn't impact things
like tax information, the government can still access it,
but I will just put that out there
and I'd like to hear, not today,
but at some point the department respond to that.
Perhaps we could do something like put a money limit on here
and like I to here at a later date if
Department of Law thinks that is practical.
So, you know, a normal family, not even normal
family but a normally wealthy family might,
in their lifetimes, accumulate $5 million of wealth
or something like that.
And we say, okay that's, that changing hands
doesn't totally change our society.
But maybe if we put a cat, so we
say for
amounts lower than five million dollars, then this is fine. It's sealed, but more than
five-million dollars or ten million than there is a societal benefit to knowing when these things
happen and having it be established in the record. And again, doesn't have to be today,
but I want people to think seriously about what happens when two hundred million
dollars sort of changes hands or goes into a trust and there's no court record of it or how it happened.
that the public can consume.
So, again, not a, doesn't need to be answered today,
but I'd love to hear the department's thoughts on that
before the next hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Yant.
Thank You to the Chair.
I just more accommodated.
It's not question.
I Just wanted to put it out there
that there are states, as mentioned before,
that do do a very good job of protecting everyone's privacy
We just have a decision to make here if we want to stay open if for business or not because if
We start to limit the amount of money
That will allow
Before people could possibly have their
information air to the public then then people will probably just do business in those states
I have
Why is it in the state's interest for people to file trust here in our state?
Senator Bjorkman, Mr. Chairman, that's an excellent question and it just increases Alaska as a place to invest it aligns with our Alaska business initiative and attracting
All sorts of economic activity in this state throughout all the sectors that we have
We want Alaska to also be at the forefront of the financial sector.
It is not right now, but allowing for large amounts of wealth to come into the state will allow
ancillary services as well, perhaps banks, attorneys, other high paid professionals to
come to the State to work in that industry.
So it's very far reaching,
but it does promote economic development.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Okay, hearing unseen. I'm sorry one more one last question. Sorry
Just off of the chairman's question these trusts that are set up in Alaska
Are they restricted on spending the money as it comes out of The Trust in Alaskan?
Senator Dunbar through the chair I would defer to Department of Law on that question
By the record, Amy Robinson for the Department of Law through the Chair, Senator Dunbar,
if any of you have please repeat your question.
So the assertion is that having more trusts set up in Alaska will spur economic development
make us open for business.
Those trusts when they're set-up, are they restricted to spending the money that comes
Mr. Chair, some of the dirt down bar, you know, I do not believe they are restricted
to spending new funds in the state of Alaska.
I am not prepared to enter through the question entirely, however I understand that there
is a requirement that they deposit a certain amount of assets within the State.
I don't know that that isn't that amount, and I apologize if I'm not sure if that's
in statute or if less than industry standard.
Thank you.
Thank You, Mr Chair.
Thank
Anything further?
I trust that we will have additional conversations about this item.
At this time, we'll set Senate Bill 225 aside and set up for our next bill.
Take a brief at ease.
Back on the record now it's 2 28 p.m. Here in set labrum commerce next up is Senate bill 198
We first heard this item when we had a presentation last week on The bill today
It is my intention to hear a brief recap of the bill bring a committee substitute before the committee for consideration
Today to once again present their bill. We have the honorable senator James Kaufman and his staff Emma Torkelson
Welcome back to Senate labor and commerce. we appreciate your
your patience as we have had a very trusting committee meeting so far.
Would you please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your brief recap of the bill.
Thank you for
the records Senator James Kaufman, Anchorage Senate District F.
And I trust the committee will find this bill to be a compelling
piece of real estate on our legislative roadmap.
So, briefly, the purpose of this bill, and we're bringing it back today, is to align
with the armed board recommendations, number one, two, which were the basic recommendations
we were seeking to make.
We had some cleanup that we had to do in the version that were presented before, as we
described.
And then move with the will of the committee.
Thank you.
Most excellent.
Are there any questions or comments from committee members
about the underlying bill before we place the CS
before the Committee?
Hearing and seeing none may have a motion, please.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move.
Committee substitute for Senate Bill 198 version 34-LS 0943
backslash November as the working document.
I'll object for purposes of explanation, Senator Coughan.
Thank you, Chair Bork and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee for the record, I've already done that.
But the CS before you remove sections 2 and 5 from version A and
renumbers the remaining sections.
These sections originally made changes to the Medicare premium subsidies for retirees to align with the reduced years of service in this bill.
As we discussed in our first hearing, after the bill was introduced we learned that the
arm board had intentionally not recommended changes to those subsidies as they now have
an actuarial impact on the health of the fund that was not studied.
So basically we didn't have the data for that.
So version N before you puts SB 198 back in line with the recommendations of Alaska Retirement
And I appreciate the committee working with us make this change.
I'm happy to take further questions, but we also have the arm board chair, Bob Williams here, available for questions.
Thank you, Senator Kauffman.
Are there any questions about the proposed CS?
Hearing and seeing none, I'll remove my objection, and CS is adopted.
Are there any questions for Mr. Williams?
Not only is Mr Bob Williams the chair of the Alaska Retirement Management Board, but he
also has a retired award-winning math teacher, so thank you for joining us today, Mr Williams.
It's kind of a big deal.
The CS is before the committee. Are there any final discussions wrap up from senator Kauffman before we went to the will of the Committee?
I just like to say thank you for all of considering this on this Friday afternoon. I appreciate it greatly
Very well may I have a motion, please?
Yes, mr. Chairman, I move to report committee substitute for Senate bill 198 version 34 dash LS
0 9 4 3 backslash November from committee with individual recommendations in the attached fiscal note is there any objection?
Seeing and hearing none committee substitute for Senate bill 198 version 3 4 dash
LS 0
9 or 4 three back slash n as in nickel Ivisk is
Reported from Committee with Individual Recommendations and Attached Fiscal Note
The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Monday
We'll take up one item for sure, and maybe others, however, one
item, for shore.
And that will be Senate Bill 81, Public Employer Pension
Contributions.
The hearing for Senate bill 121, health insurance allowable
charges has been canceled at the request of the bill sponsor.
As there is no further business to come before the Senate Labor
and Commerce Committee today, we are adjourned at 2.33 p.m.