Alaska Legislature: Senate Labor & Commerce, 5/4/26, 1:30pm

I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order, and the time is 1:33 PM. We're in Beltz Room 105. Today is Monday, May 4th. Members present today are Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Dunbar, Senator Yunt, and myself, Senator Bjorkman. Senator Merrick is excused to the Finance Committee.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Welcome everyone to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please turn off or silence your cell phones and join me in welcoming our recording secretary, Carrie Tupow, and our LIO moderator, Susan Quigley. Our agenda for today is House Joint Resolution 38, Public Safety Telecommunicators. Following that will be Senate Bill 234, Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act.

After that will be House Bill 249, Transfer Vehicle Title to Insurer, and then Senate Bill 207, Property Possession, Property Crimes. Rounding out today's order will be Senate House Bill 126, Reinstatement of Native Corporations, Religious Corporations. First up, House Joint Resolution 38. This is our second hearing on the bill. During our first hearing, we had a presentation of the bill and we took invited testimony.

I would like to invite the sponsor, the Honorable Representative Carolyn Hall, and her staff, Maya Narang, to the table to provide a brief recap of the bill. Ladies, welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce. We are so glad that you're here. Please state your names and affiliation and begin your brief recap.

Thank you, uh, Chair Bjorkman, and good afternoon, members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, my name is Carolyn Hall, and I represent the West Anchorage neighborhoods of Turnagain, Spenard, and Sand Lake. And with me is staff Mayanara and staff to Representative Hall. Thank you to the committee for allowing us the opportunity to have H.R. 38 In front of you again.

As a reminder, this resolution encourages Congress to pass the Enhancing First Response Act or similar legislation to reclassify emergency response dispatchers into the protective service classification along with their fellow first responder colleagues. Currently, the Federal Standard Occupational Classification System— under the Federal Standard Occupational Classification System, emergency response dispatchers are considered clerical. And as a result, um, that, that means that they are not at— they don't have access to the same federal, um, benefits that their first responder colleagues have in the protective service class. So this reclassification would acknowledge dispatchers' critical role in our first responder system in providing them access to the same federal training, grant opportunities, and wellness resources, um, as those.

Any protective service class have access to. Happy to answer any questions or to go into greater detail should the committee want me to. Thank you very much, Representative Hall. Also available for questions besides the bill sponsor and her staff are Mr. Matt Carlson, firefighter paramedic from the Anchorage Fire Department, and Mr. Shane Westcott, South Central Vice President for the Alaska Professional Firefighters Association. Are there any questions for that slate of fine Alaskans?

Seeing and hearing none, I will now open public testimony for House Joint Resolution 38. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

We have one person online for public testimony. That is Iran Khawara. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] My name is Erin Kelwora. I'm the Public Safety Manager for the City of Juneau. I manage programs for both the police and fire departments, including the 911 system, our communications center staffing, and associated technologies that go along with that. I'm a board member of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency Numbering Association. I encourage you to support the bill in front of the United States Congress that would recognize public safety telecommunicators as first responders.

Updating the classification of public safety dispatchers from clerical workers to protective service workers will better reflect the lifesaving work that they perform each day and each night. I believe that public safety dispatchers should be classified as a protected service occupation, the same category as firefighters, police officers, and corrections officers. Although dispatchers are the first point of contact for individuals in crisis, the United States Office of Management and Budget officially classifies them as clerical workers, the same category as secretaries, office clerks, and other folks who work in an office, not working shift work, not processing emergency calls, and that do not save lives. They are public safety professionals. They face challenges every single day.

They face stress, mental health, physical health issues due to the job. And this profession is so important that I think we need to recognize the importance of the profession itself, the 911 system, and their commitment to protecting our community in the role that they're performing every day. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Up next, Frances Robinson.

Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair Bjorkman and members of the committee. My name is Frances Robinson. I want to thank you for hearing this resolution today, and thank you to Representative Paul for bringing this resolution forward. I appreciate being able to go on record in my support of House Joint Resolution 38. I'm a 19-year public safety telecommunicator for the Anchorage Fire Department.

We provide fire and EMS services to the Municipality of Anchorage, including Chugiak, Eagle River, and 20 miles south of Girdwood. I was the call taker and managed the radio channel for a structure fire in which one of our firefighters became trapped. In the middle of chaos and overwhelming emotion, I remained calm, coordinated resources, and supported crews as I worked the channel alongside firefighters during the harrowing rescue. This is beyond the scope of a typical office and administrative support staff as we're currently considered. I was the calm voice reassuring a teenager that help was on the way, providing instructions to keep herself safe while trapped in her home while it was on fire.

Sadly, the fire ultimately claimed her father's life. This is beyond the scope of a typical office and administrative support staff. I have coached countless callers through CPR of loved ones and complete strangers. I have guided callers in bringing new precious babies into the world. I have also answered the call for an abandoned deceased baby left alone in a park to be found by a bystander.

This is beyond the scope of typical office and administrative support staff. I was a call taker when the roof collapsed on our local CrossFit gym. I managed the radio channel and coordinated resources for multiple agencies while firefighters worked tirelessly performing a rescue, all the while not knowing if our responders would face a secondary collapse risking their safety. This is beyond the scope of a typical office and administrative support staff. The 911 telecommunicators in our community are critically important public safety personnel.

We are the first point of contact and only have our voice to try and reassure callers help is on the way. We rarely get closure. Once we hang up, we are immediately ready for the next crisis, often not getting the opportunity to process what we just heard. I respectfully urge you to support House Joint Resolution number 38. This is a meaningful first step in reclassifying and honoring telecommunicators for the life-saving role we play in our communities, but ultimately relies at the state level to make tangible changes.

We have the opportunity to continue this momentum with HB 234. This concludes my testimony. Thank you very much. Up next we have Matt Carlson. Mr. Carlson, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

Hi, this is Matt Carlson. I don't have a public testimony today. I'm just online for questions. Most excellent. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Seeing and hearing none, at this time we will close public testimony. Brings HJR 38 back before the committee. Is there any further committee comments, discussion, or questions? Seeing and hearing none, Representative Hall, do you have any closing remarks? None other than I really appreciate the committee's time and consideration of HJR 38.

Thank you. Very well. Seeing no further discussions, questions, or comments, what are the wishes of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move to report House Joint Resolution 38, version 30, for Larry Sugar LS-1502/A from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any objection? I would like to announce for the record that we have been joined by Senator Merrick at 1:42 PM. Seeing and hearing no objection, House Joint Resolution 38, version 3.4, LS-1502/A as an anchor point, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for the next bill.

We're back on the record. It's 1:44 PM here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up is Senate Bill 234. Sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is our second hearing on the bill.

I would like to invite— who's already here— the Honorable Senator Matt Clayman and his staff, Ms. Serena Hackenmiller, to the table. Welcome. Put yourselves on the record and begin your brief recap of the bill. For the record, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Senator Matt Clayman, Senate District H in West Anchorage. Senate Bill 234 replaces the current Alaska Fiduciary and Income Act, which governs trusts in Alaska, with the Alaska Fiduciary and Income and Principal Act. This act makes updates to the current framework as a response to industry needs and aligns state law with current industry practices to keep Alaska competitive in the national and global trust markets.

Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Senator Clayman or his staff?

On the phone for questions, we have Mr. Dave Schaftel with the Alaska Trust and Estate Professionals Group. Are there any questions for Mr. Schaftel?

Hearing and seeing none at this time, we will open public testimony on Senate Bill 234. Public testimony is now open. Is anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Seeing and hearing no one, this time we will close public testimony on Senate Bill 234. That brings Senate Bill 234 back before the committee. Is there any committee discussion?

Seeing and hearing no committee discussion, Senator Clayman, do you have any closing remarks? Thank you for hearing the measure. Very well. What are the wishes of the committee? Mr. Chairman, I move to report Senate Bill 234 version 34-LS0919-N from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, Senate Bill 234 version 34-LS0919-N, as in Nenelchik, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. We will take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for our next bill. Brief at ease.

The record now. Next up is House Bill 249, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Alexi Moore. This is our first hearing on this bill. To present the bill, we have staff to the Honorable Representative Intamayo Harbison. Mr. Harbison, welcome to Senate Labor and Commerce.

Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation. Thank you, Chair Bjorkman. For the record, Intamayo Harbison, staff to Representative Moore. Representative Moore apologizes for not being able to be here. She is currently in a House Finance meeting.

House Bill 249 aims to do— make a relatively simple change to Alaska's antiquated vehicle license transfer statute. Currently, as the statute is currently written, an insurance company, after they receive the title from an individual after totaling a vehicle out, has to then seek a notary, get a notary stamp on that registration document in order to have that document then be transferred over to an auto auction site. So what we're ending up seeing in Alaska is that, um, you know, a company like GEICO has to send their documents all the way back to Delaware to get notarized, and that's causing massive delays on Alaska's auto auction lots. We're seeing cars that are wrecked that would otherwise be able to be auctioned off having to sit for sometimes in excess of 6 months, a year, and taking up space on these lots, as well as fees sometimes depending on who's at fault for accident. So, um, this bill, again, relatively straightforward, aims to streamline that process to allow for an electronic signature transfer between that insurance company and the Alaska Auto Auction site.

Thank you very much, Mr. Harbison. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, At this time, we will go to invited testimony. First up, we have Mr. Mark Binder, Director of Government Affairs for Copart, on Teams. Mr. Binder, welcome very much to Senate Labor and Commerce. We're glad you're here. Hey, thank you, and good afternoon, Chair Bjorkman and all committee members.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk. And, and as it was explained, what happens is— I hope none of you have ever had a total loss vehicle claim, Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry to interrupt. I just need you to say your name and affiliation for the record, please. Oh, okay, I apologize.

It's Mark Bender, B-I-N-D-E-R, and I'm with Copart, which is an auto dealer slash auction. And when an Alaskan has a total loss claim, Chairman, they, um, they have to settle with the insurance company, and they were, as was stated, they're required to have the documents signed and transferred Basically, they're selling the vehicle to the vehicle owner. But how are they supposed to go get it notarized when the car's a total loss and it can't be driven? It takes a lot of time, and the current state requirements are for a wet signature. And we're just asking for that, for this one special niche situation, for it to be an electronic signature with no notary.

This is a very high-stress moment. People's lives are usually pretty frantic during a total loss claim. And our goal is to speed it up for the citizens and by modernizing the process. And this language, it's really interesting because it can take a multiple-week settlement and it can change it to one phone call. You can agree on the settlement, sign the documents, and issue payment all in one phone call if this bill was passed.

As was mentioned, all the documents for, say, GEICO have to go to Southeast Georgia. Um, obviously that takes a lot of time to ship, but it'd be nice if it could just be done electronically. And just to give you a little background, there's 40 other states that have before this year that allow this. There's 3 more that have passed this year, so a total of 43, and we have 3 more that are really close to getting passed outside of Alaska. So just, we ask for consideration, for support, and I'm available to answer any questions or provide any more information that's needed.

Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Binder. Are there any questions from committee members for Mr. Binder or Representative Moore, who has joined us at 1:50 PM?

Hearing and seeing none, I appreciate you all very much for bringing this bill forward. Seems like a very common sense change. Representative Moore, do you have any closing remarks before we set the bill aside for further consideration? Um, for the record, Alexi Moore, District 28, um, wasila. I just want to thank the committee for having us today and for allowing us to present the bill.

Sorry for my tardiness, I was trying to race to get over here. So appreciate all of you, and if you need anything, our office is open for you guys for further questions. Very well, thank you. At this time, we will set this item aside for further consideration at a future meeting. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for our next item.

Back on the record. It's 1:55 PM now in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up is Senate Bill 207 sponsored by the Labor and Commerce Committee. This is our first hearing on this bill. To present the bill, we have my staff, Mr. Matthew Churchill, Esquire.

Mr. Churchill, welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please state your name and affiliation on the record. And begin your presentation of the bill. Thank you, Chair Bjorkman, members of the Senate Labor.

Commerce Committee. Uh, for the record, Matt Churchill, and I'm staffed to Senator Bjorkman. Uh, Senate Bill 207, uh, aims to establish a process to allow property owners to seek prompt law enforcement assistance in removing unlawful occupants. Officers will be authorized under this bill to serve the occupants with notice to immediately vacate the dwelling when specific criteria are met. The owner must attest under penalty of perjury that the unlawful occupant never had any rental agreement or ownership interest in the property and that the occupant is not an immediate family member.

Officers must confirm that the statutory requirements appear to be satisfied before taking any action authorized under this bill. SB 207 in turn imposes liability on owners who attempt to wrongfully remove legal occupants under its authority. And SB 207 provides strong protections and remedies for those improperly displaced. In addition, SB 207 clarifies the related property offenses of forgery and deceptive business practices, targeting specifically individuals who advertise for sale or lease a dwelling when they have no legal right to do so. I believe we have on the line a few realtors today to speak to the bill.

And if it's the will of the Chair, I'm happy to go through the sectional analysis for the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Churchill.

If you wanted to walk us through that sectional analysis, that would be most excellent. Absolutely. Chair Bjorkman, should I begin with the summary of changes? I would just go through the— if you go through the sectional analysis of Version H. That would be great. Okay.

So Section 1 allows property owners to request law enforcement to remove unlawful occupants from residential property if no rental agreement ever existed and they have no other legal right to occupy the property. The process requires a sworn affidavit of the owner and verification by a police officer that the affidavit is accurate. Wrongfully removed occupants can sue for damages. This does not affect criminal trespass laws. Section 2 adds rental agreements to AS 1146.505(a) as a crime of forgery in the second degree.

Section 3 adds a new subsection making the sale, lease, or advertisement of a dwelling by unauthorized persons a crime of deceptive business practices. Section 4 clarifies that deceptive business practices remains a Class A misdemeanor except in cases outlined in the new subsection (e). Section 5 provides additional definitions of Class C felony for deceptive business practices, and Section 6 adds a new section to AS 1146.710 defining deceptive business practices as a Class C felony if the person violates, uh, A6 of this section. That concludes the sectional analysis. Very well, thank you.

Are there any questions for staff to the bill sponsor or the bill sponsor?

Seeing and hearing no questions, we will go now to invited testimony. First up, we have joining us via the phone, we have Ava Anderson. Ms. Anderson, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Yes, my name is Ava Anderson and I am calling in in regards to Senate Bill 207 on behalf of the Alaska Realtors.

Very good. Please begin.

This bill addresses a growing and very real concern for property owners across Alaska. The inability to quickly and lawfully reclaim property from individuals who are occupying it without permission, commonly referenced to as squatters. Property ownership comes with significant responsibility: mortgage, taxes, maintenance, and liability. When someone unlawfully occupies a property, the owner is not only deprived of its use, but often financially responsible for it. Current processes to remove these individuals can be slow, costly, and unclear, leaving owners in a prolonged state of uncertainty and loss.

Senate Bill 207 provides more efficient and practical path for addressing these situations. It helps distinguish clearly between legitimate tenant, tenant protections and unlawful occupancy. This distinction is critical. While tenants deserve long legal protections, Individuals who enter or remain on property without the legal right should not be afforded the same process that can delay rightful possession of weeks and even months. In my professional experience, and as the position of the Realtors, delays in regaining possession can result in property damage, loss of income, uh, increased legal costs, safety concerns for surrounding communities, This bill restores balance between ensuring property owners have responsible and timely mechanics to— for which to reclaim what's rightfully theirs.

This is not about removing protections, but it's about clarifying them. It ensures that the laws support both fairness and accountability. I respectfully urge you to support Senate Bill 207 and help protect the rights of property owners across our state. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson.

Up next we have Ms. Elise Buckles. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Hi, I would like to thank you for Senate Bill 207 and the work that Borgman has put in. I, um, starting back, I'm actually someone who started this and, and going around in the Senate in Juneau asking for this to happen. Personally, as a state representative of Alaska Realtors and the past president, I've also been the person in my area, which is the Mat-Su Borough, to actually put notices on doors and ask people to leave. And because of that, I have firsthand stories of guns being put to my head and dogs attacking me. It's a very serious thing and scary.

Just recently, I spoke before the Big Lake— or I should say, a woman stood up crying because there's squatters on her property, and she lives on her property, and they have moved into her barn. She doesn't have the $750 to pay the court, which is part of the process in order to get the judgment. To get the police involved to get them off. So I want to thank you very much for pushing this through. It really is something that needs to be pushed through this year.

We started this last year, but it's becoming a problem through the entire state. We are flooded with, with squatters going in. I understand everyone needs shelter in the wintertime, but if you do not have a judgment right now, they are currently asking you to to put the notice on, it has to be from the 1st to the 30th. Sometimes it takes about 60 days to get people out of these properties. And while that time is going, they're taking all of their personal effects and selling them and taking the copper out of the walls.

It just has to happen right away. The insurance claims are being denied. So again, I would like to thank you and ask everyone to vote in favor. For SB 207.

Very good. Thank you, Ms. Buckles. Are there any questions from Committee members?

We appreciate your testimony, ma'am. Up next is Christine Casagrande. Ms. Casagrande, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

My name is Christine Casagrande. I'm a member of Alaska Realtors, and I'm calling from Stewart. I'm calling to also voice my support for House Bill 207, as this bill will protect homeowners from unauthorized occupants and provide homeowners a practical process to regain the possession of their property from trespassers. And I'd just like to echo everything that Eva and Elise also shared with you, and I'd like to thank each one of you for the opportunity to hear my testimony. And please vote in favor of House Bill 207.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Casagrande. Any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, that ends invited testimony for today.

Is there any committee discussion?

Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm just trying to understand some of the changes that happened in Senate Judiciary from version N to version H. So the original version had a fiscal note related to the.

Public Defender Agency of $157,000, but I don't think there is a fiscal note now for the judiciary version. And I was wondering if someone could explain to me— because I thought the criminal provisions stayed in. They described that there still were criminal provisions here. Here you go. Deceptive business practices, a Class C felony, et cetera.

So can you explain why the Public Defender Agency now believes that they no longer have fiscal concern? Thank you for that question, Senator Dunbar. Mr. Terrence Haas from the Public Defender Agency in the Department of Administration is online. Mr. Haas, thank you for being available today. Could you please address Senator Dunbar's concern?

Uh, yes, for the record, this is Terrence Haas, Public Defender for the State of Alaska, testifying from Calling in from Anchorage. And to Chair Portman, to Senator Dunbar, the primary shifts here, my concern, you'll note if you have the fiscal note, the fiscal note on the original version was for an investigator. And my concern related to the criminal trespass provisions, which were very different than the current version of the bill. And in that version, there was gonna be significant involvement potentially with the public defender. Also, Law at that time had a positive note as well.

And the concern was property issues, including both ownership and possession, are issues that are heavily, are document-heavy and fact-intensive, and was gonna require significant investigation to resolve those into plain defenses. I believe under the current version, while there may be an increase and there may be charges brought, as Law noted, it's a little bit harder to suss those out. They're not as common. I don't think it's as likely to create the need. And so I decided to strike our original fiscal note and it's now a zero note.

Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Haas. That's, that's good information.

So are there substantive changes to the criminal trespass provisions here, or do you otherwise think this bill will increase the number of cases that your agency conducts, even if it doesn't require significant new investigator resources, will increase the number of cases that your agency is defending?

Through the chair, Senator Dunbar, um, thank you for the question. I, I anticipate the potential that there might be some, um, new cases, but I don't think it's going to be, uh, like anything as many cases as it would have been under prior versions. Certainly it is possible that there will be some, um, I believe forgery is the is the primary issue in the new version. I think it's possible there'll be new charges. I anticipate being able to absorb those, but if, if I'm wrong about that and there's a lot more charges, I may be coming back to ask for more.

But, but right now I think some, but, but not a significant amount. I kind of follow up, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. So I'm looking, trying to look at the new causes of action, or I should say the new criminal laws, um, that are associated with the new version, is it fair to say that they, uh, Mr. Haas, deal more with the owners of the property who tend to be more sophisticated and wealthier, maybe don't need your services, but the owner of the property in case they try to, you know, fraudulently use this provision versus the sort of let's say colloquially referred to as squatters— themselves.

Is that a fair interpretation of the version, or are there still provisions in the new version that also make it more likely that cases will be brought against the squatters?

I think your observation is a good one. In all likelihood, the kind of cases where somebody possesses a forged document or is dealing in a transaction are less likely to be cases where the public defender is gonna be involved or where the squatter, in the traditional sense that people think about a squatter, is gonna be pulled into the case. They're more likely to be, frankly, civil matters with a criminal implication rather than the sort of high number of criminal matters we'd be likely to get with just trespasers, um, who are elevated because they overstay, uh, overstay a lease or something along those lines. But I think your observation is correct. They're, they're more likely to be sophisticated litigants.

They're less likely to be public defender clients, and I think they're less likely to be a high volume. Thank you. Um, that's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Haas. You're welcome. Any further questions?

Seeing and hearing none, I had one more invited testifier on our list. She contacted you at all? Okay, no worries, no problem. Okay, well, the— just closing comments on my end, and then I'll kick it back to Mr. Churchill for a minute. The goal of this bill is to simply clarify that landlord-tenant provisions and protections under the law should not apply to folks who have never had permission to be in someone's home or on someone's property.

And we believe that there, there should be a clear line there where folks who have had a rental agreement or are family members, extended family members. One of the things that they changed in the judiciary that was an excellent change was They made sure we encompassed all of the extended family members that would likely happen under this type of scenario to make sure they're protected. And then those processes of asking someone to leave a property and protections would still apply. But if it's very clear to the owner as well as law enforcement, under penalty of perjury and significant financial and, and legal pain, if they are not telling the truth, that the person on their property is not supposed to be there, then they may have them removed. Senator Dunbar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess a follow-up question then. I guess there's two things if we're going to hear this bill again. One, I would like to hear from Alaska Legal Services Corporation if they think this will increase their workload.

You know, the public defender said fewer criminal cases. This might result in more civil cases. Alaska Legal Services Corporation is private company— not company, nonprofit. But as we'll find on Wednesday when we hopefully increase their funding, they do receive quite a bit of state support. And so it'll be interesting to hear— I'll be interested to hear from them if they think that more cases will result from this.

And the second question I have for you, Mr. Chair, um, or for, um, your staffer, is, uh, how does someone— perhaps it's in there and I just haven't been able to find the right provision— but if law enforcement comes to remove someone that the landlord claims is a squatter, how does the squatter prove that they're not? That is to say, is there a— is a law enforcement officer required to ask them, did you ever have a lease? Did you ever have an agreement here? Um, is that— is there a provision for that?

Because we're generally talking about people, I think, that would be pretty unsophisticated. And if someone doesn't explicitly ask them, have you ever had a lease, you know, a lease that maybe has expired, they might just sort of pack up and leave when they actually do have legal protections under your bill. But how, how does the squatter know? You know, is anyone going to tell them, this is what you need to prove to me? Me being the law enforcement officer.

Mr. Churchill, uh, through the chair, thank you, Senator Dunbar, for the question. Um, so, um, my understanding is that if it appears to the law enforcement officer that the landlord's affidavit is in order, they're going to, you know, evict that person or remove them from the premises. But then subsection H, that's on page 4, line 14, and that does provide that if someone has been wrongfully removed, They can bring an action against the landowner, and they can recover actual damages, an amount not to exceed 3 times the value of 1 month of the rent.

Yes.

As to whether or not the wrongfully removed or the removed occupant would be advised of that right, I don't I don't believe the bill addresses that.

Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Senator Dunbar. Thank you. I'm looking at the previous page, Section E, starting on 27, line 29.

Peace officers shall serve the occupant with notice to vacate and deliver possession of dwelling unit to the owner within 48 hours. Service may be accomplished by hand delivery of the notice to occupant or by posting the notice on the front door entrance of the dwelling unit Here we go. The person serving notice shall attempt to verify the identity of each occupant and note the identities. So I understand that the occupant has a right to bring action. I'll just say that the folks that are likely impacted by this are very unlikely to bring an action.

Post-fact, right? Um, maybe if they have Las Legal Services there to help them or someone else. Um, but it sort of strikes me a little bit like Miranda rights. You know, you have the right to remain silent. We tell that to people, you know.

Um, if during that service process, there's no one telling this person that they have these rights specifically, that you can't be evicted if you ever had a lease, or some other rental agreement, that it feels like we might end up evicting— or we, the state— evicting some folks that actually had a legal right that never gets to effectuate it. So I— this is our first hearing on this bill, and I just— I guess I'd like to— for us to consider if there's some way, perhaps in that notice, perhaps that notice to vacate would say more than just you must vacate, but here, here is the reasons why you must vacate. You have never held a, you know, if you have, if you have ever held a rental agreement, this does not apply to you, or, you know, something to— so they have informed, you're informing the person of their rights. So thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much, Senator Dunbar, and your points are well taken. I think about a law enforcement officer, and we can talk to DPS and law and others about this, but as they are trying to make a determination about whether an occupant had a, had a right to occupy a dwelling, I think those are questions that they have to ask in order to complete their investigation about whether or not the affidavit that they received from the property owner is valid, right? So they're, they're going to have to take steps to validate and test whether or not that affidavit is true and whether or not they themselves as a law enforcement officer are taking a lawful action by removing that person. And just like any law enforcement officer would do when they effectuate a traffic stop, they're asking questions, right? They're asking questions to see and establish whether or not a driver of the car was in fact breaking the law or were they following the law.

And I think that, I would hope, would be in the normal course of action by law enforcement. However, hope is not a strategy, and we can make sure that those folks are taking those actions appropriately. Senator Amar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is DPS online or available for questions?

I do not see them online today. However, we do have in the back, uh, Ms. Casey Schroeder from the Department of Law.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Casey Schroeder, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Law. Um, through the chair, Senator Dunbar, Section 1 is a little more of a civil process than a criminal process. I am a criminal attorney, but I did— I would just point out that on page 3, just above where you were reading, um, line 23, it says the peace officer receiving a request shall verify that the requester is the owner and, and the things that are asserted in the affidavit. What steps an officer may use to make that verification, you would definitely want to talk to Department of Public Safety, but I would just want to point that out for the committee.

Thank you. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Senator Dahmer. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And yeah, I did see that provision, but I guess I interpreted it to be the only thing the peace officer is required to verify is that the person is the record owner of the property. But I see at the very end it says appears entitled to relief under this section. I suppose that could be interpreted as they need to verify that the squatter if we want to use that term— has never had a rental agreement, for example, and is not a member of the extended family and all the other exemptions. That does seem like quite a bit of work for that law enforcement officer.

And through what I think is usually a judicial process— I could be wrong about that. I also haven't done an eviction of this kind. But I just— I'm a little worried that— so there's two tensions here. One is that we might be evicting people who actually had a lease have a legal right to remain there. The second is we're trying to create this simplified system for landowners to, to remove people who don't— who aren't qualified to be there.

And we're basically requiring law enforcement to do a pretty detailed dive into the situation, um, so that we provide valid legal notice to the person that is living there, if that makes sense. And I actually don't know, is that Is that typical for a state trooper, for example, to do that level of what is essentially a civil investigation? Through the chair, Senator Dunbar, you'd want to talk to the Department of Public Safety about that. I, I would say that criminal trespass is a pretty common charge and there's a range of conduct obviously, and some cases obviously may be very clear and not require a lot of legwork. Others may not.

But you would really want to talk to the, to law enforcement about what steps they do take to, to verify those things. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say that that's a really good point, and that the way criminal trespass interacts with this statute is interesting, and perhaps there isn't much more work that DPS needs to do. I use DPS as an example because that's our purview.

I think this would also apply to the APD and the Kenai Police and everyone else, um, and just knowing that if it's just a little bit more than criminal trespass or the same as criminal trespass, then that's fine. Um, if it isn't, then I'm a little surprised that there's no fiscal note from DPS or anyone else. Um, and, uh, yeah, I just hope we get a chance to hear from them, uh, either at the next hearing or in the interim. Thank you. I mean, not interim, but like between now and the next hearing.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very well. Thank you.

Anything further? Ms. Schroeder, thank you for being here today. Thank you.

All right, we will set this bill, Senate Bill 207, aside until future hearing, which will be on Wednesday of this week. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for the next bill.

On the record now, it is 2:24 PM. Our final item of today is House Bill 126, brought to us by the Honorable Representative Neil Foster and his staff Paul LeBoul. Mr. LeBoul, welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce. Could you please put yourself on the record and begin your brief recap of the bill? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Paul LeBoul, staff to Representative Foster. Apologies for his absence, but he's up in Finance. House Bill 126 is a bill that allows involuntarily dissolved Native corporations to be reincorporated as the same legal entity, thereby allowing them to retain all the assets granted to them under ANCSA.

Thank you very much, Mr. LaBolle. We appreciate the recap. The bill as it came to us from the Community and Regional Affairs Committee, pretty straightforward and non-controversial. We have another concept that we can talk about that is related to this subject as well, and that concept is contained in a draft proposed substitute that members have in their packets. May I have a motion, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move committee substitute for House Bill 126 version 34, Lima Sugar 0099/TOM, as a working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I object for purposes of explanation. My staff, Mr. Conrad Jackson, will now present the changes that are included in the draft proposed committee substitute.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Conrad Jackson, staff to Senator Bjorkman and the Labor and Commerce Committee. The draft proposed CS before members for consideration, version T, adds new section 2 regarding the annual reporting requirements of corporations particularly Native corporations organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. In this CS, we are amending AS 4555.139, Reports of Corporations.

And what we're doing is removing the total assets exceeding $1 million provision and returning to the original shareholder count as two triggers for reports to the administrator and to shareholders. [Speaker:CHAIR] Very good. Thank you for that explanation.

With us available to discuss the concept in the draft proposed CS is Director Sylvan Robb from the Division of Corporations, Businesses and Professional Licensing. She's in the room. Ms. Ann Siviluk, the Chief of ANCSA and Securities with the Division of Banking and Securities. Is also available for questions.

And Ms. Kris Slote, counsel for the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, is on the phone. Are there any questions from committee members? Senator Dunbar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have a couple questions, and folks have spoken to me about this concept before, and I'd asked for some follow-up, and I didn't get the answer to the questions I had asked, and so I'm going to sort of repeat them now, and hopefully we can get the answers. And not everybody here was— people here weren't the people I was asking, so I guess the first question is, um, how many corporations would this impact? Um, so how many corporations fall into this both a class of equity security held, had 500 or fewer original shareholders when originally organized.

And then I suppose there's no asset cap. So I guess that's the first question. How many village corporations are there that have 500 or fewer original shareholders?

I guess it's probably a question for Ms. Ann Sivilich, I would guess. How many corporations are we exempting with this proposal? Hi, through the Chair, for the record, my name is Ann Sivilich. I am a Financial Examiner IV and Chief of INCSA and Securities with the Division of Banking and Securities. To answer your question about how many corporations would this impact, So currently there's 59 corporations that meet the reporting requirements as the language is current, AS4555-139.

I will say that division staff have been researching this and have been able to identify that approximately 22 regional and village corporations so far have had at least 500 shareholders initially. So that would be if the language— this amended language is adopted. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Yes.

Approximately 22 regional and village— I mean, I would assume that every regional corporation would have more than 500 original shareholders. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But can we get a list before we next hear this bill? Can we get a list of who those corporations are that are exempt? Do you have that information for us, Mr. Civilich, Ms. Civilich?

Those that— I guess you said you've researched the ones that did have more than 500. Could we get the list of the names of those who have less than 500?

Through the chair, yes, I will check with our director, but I don't see a problem with providing you a list of what we've researched so far. Follow-up, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. Yeah, and I just— the reason, the reason I have some concern with this is because, um, some of the, uh, originally very small Alaska Native corporations have grown quite large, very large.

And I don't want to pick on them specifically, but I have a list of the 49 largest corporations in Alaska and It looks like 3 or 4 of them probably fit this.

Someone's typing. So 3 or 4 of the 10 largest, or 11 largest, I think maybe fit this. I haven't gone through the whole list. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a dozen, or maybe not a dozen, but a number of them. And I'm wondering if there's some way to put limits around this exemption.

That is to say, I think— Many of us agree that very small corporations have difficulty with these kind of reporting requirements. That is, you know, if you're a very small corporation originally and today and with very little revenue, it's hard for you to do these kind of reports. If you are a corporation with, let's say, $1.4 billion of revenue per year, I think this reporting is a little bit less onerous.

And so maybe we could remove— we could change this to put some kind of cap on, you know, it says total assets. Maybe it's easier to do income instead of assets. Say if you make more than $100 million a year, then— if you make less than $100 million a year, you're exempt. And then the vast majority of small village corporations would be exempt. But the very largest corporations would still have this reporting requirement.

A couple other comments here. I think that even if— maybe I'm mistaken here, but this is for probably Ms. Sivilich or Ms. Slotty— I thought that there was different reporting requirements for the regional corporations versus the village corporations, and that this was specifically about the village corporations, and the regional corporations would have to be doing some kind of reporting regardless. Is that true?

Through the chair, this is Anne Sivilec again. Currently, it does not matter if you're a regional or a village corporation. If you have 500 or more shareholders and $1 million or more total assets, you are required to meet the Division's reporting requirements for proxy solicitation materials and annual reports for the annual meeting. And if we were to pass this provision, would all of the regional corporations still be required to do their reporting?

Through the chair, I do believe that the regional corporations would still fall under the reporting requirements with this amended change. Follow, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. So, um, My understanding, and maybe there— I need someone to speak to someone from the Department of Law, but my understanding was these reporting requirements exist because Alaska Native corporations are and should be treated differently from other kinds of C corporations with shareholders.

That is, there are certain reporting requirements that C corporations have that Alaska Native corporations are exempt from. Is there anyone— Ms. Civilec, can you speak to that, or is there anyone else online that can speak to that? Or perhaps Mr. LaBelle, could you speak to that?

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would defer to, uh, Chris Salty with ANVCA. Very good. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, Mr. Salty, if you could give us a little bit of background as to the issue and the problem that we're trying to solve here with this proposed change, that would be most excellent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Christopher Slade. I'm a partner at Schwab, Williamson Wyatt and lead our Indian Country and Alaska Native Corporation practice from our Anchorage office. I've spent the bulk of my career advising agencies on governance, shareholder, and fiduciary matters, and as noted, I am here on behalf of the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association.

A nonprofit association advocating for the interests of Alaska Native Village Corporations. In regards to the specific— the specific amendment to AS 45.55.139, it would— the current status is yes, any Native Corporation that has both 500 or more shareholders and more than— and $1 million or more of assets are required to file their proxy statements and annual reports including audited financial statements with the Division of Banking and Security.

I would note that the 500 shareholder count is a simple headcount. So a holder of 1 share counts the same as a holder of 100. And an original enrollee counts as a great-grandchild who inherited, say, 0.5 of a share. And the issue I think that this amendment, this proposed bill is attempting to address is that when— when ANCSA was passed and Congress authorized the creation of Alaska Native Corporations, both village and regional corporations, ANCSA created essentially a closed class of original shareholders based on Alaska Native enrollment as of December 18, 1971. And so Alaska adopted the 500.

Shareholder trigger, that number was identified with those Alaska Native corporations that had broad original enrollment, corporations of meaningful size with substantial initial shareholder bases. And it was a— that threshold was a reasonable proxy for size and complexity at formation, but it is no longer. And this is because the primary way that ANC shareholders are— base is growing is through inheritance. For example, when an original shareholder passes away, 100 shares may pass to 4 different heirs. The corporation now has 3 additional shareholders, but the total shares outstanding, the total assets, total revenue, and operational complexity are unchanged.

So across 5 decades, just through the natural dilution of shares through inheritance and passing of original shareholders, we are starting to see a significant number of village corporations whose shareholders' roles have doubled or tripled without any corresponding growth in the underlying corporation. So for example, a village corporation that may have started with 280 original enrollees may today only have 700 names on its ledger, but the corporation is not necessarily larger or complex or more sophisticated. It simply has more grandchildren and great-grandchildren on its books. And so the problem that this is generating is that the smaller village corporations do not have the kind of operational ability or finances or ability to comply with the complex regulations from the Division of Banking and Securities. Are now being required to provide these extensive proxy statements and other filings with the division.

And that is generating additional costs and issues for them, costs that are simply rounding errors for regional corporations but are very— sometimes very significant for village corporations. And so the proposed amendment would count original shareholders, those who received shares pursuant to ANC enrollment, rather than total record shareholders. This does not impose any additional recordkeeping on the ANCs or the— because they already track those. They would already know what those are.

As noted before, all of the larger regional corporations— sorry, all of the regional corporations remain fully subject to the statute and the requirement to file their proxy statements and annual reports with the Division. They had thousands of original enrollees and exceed the threshold by any measure. Only AMCs that crossed 500 shareholders solely through inheritance would be removed from the Division's filing regime. Now in regards to the comments about or questions about making sure that shareholders receive you know, the reporting information, it is important to note that this amendment does not do away with the village corporation's obligation to provide reports to their shareholders. Under ANCSA, the village corporations are still required to provide annual reports to their shareholders, including audited financial statements.

Their shareholders still— the ANCs are still subject to corporate law, Alaska's Corporations Code, which include— which grants the shareholders the right to seek out and ask for the books and records of the corporation. And so there are still significant governance, audit, and disclosure requirements that apply to every Native corporation regardless of size even after adoption— even after this bill is adopted. So this will not reduce the shareholder transparency. It simply reduces the burden that is placed on smaller village corporations to having to file certain documents and provide kind of these detailed proxy statement disclosures that are mandated by the Division of Bank and Securities regulations. Thank you very much.

This is a narrow fix. It does not weaken protection for shareholders of the corporations the legislature meant to reach and really removes a growing, through an entirely mechanical means, compliance burden from the smallest AMCs caused not by their growth but by their just generational inheritance. Thank you very much, Mr. Slody. I think Senator Dunbar has a few additional questions, and I have a couple too. Yes, um, that, that was a good statement of what the amendment does, um, and I appreciate it, and I do understand that that is what the amendment does.

I have two main questions. One is, I agree with you, the sort of arbitrary 500 number of people that might expand based on, on having children, that, that is, that makes sense why we wouldn't be tied to that anymore. We could do away with that, but Why remove the asset number? Maybe $1 million is too small in assets, or maybe assets isn't the right way to measure it. Maybe it should be income.

But, you know, some of these corporations that started very small are now among the largest corporations in Alaska and with more than $1 billion in revenue. And so if our goal is to exempt smaller village corporations, I think that's a goal that I share. And Let's set it— let's find a definition of small village corporation that's logical and flexible, but doesn't sweep in these very large village corporations that are even larger than some regional corporations now in income and assets. So, that's one question. My second is, and this is what I said before, is it's true that shareholders will have access to this information, but I'm wondering for— if these corporations were— and I genuinely don't know the answer to this question.

This is not like a leading question, and this might resolve my concerns. If these Native corporations were instead typical C corporations with shareholders, are there any public reporting requirements that they would have that the Native corporations don't have because they were created through ANCSA? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [Speaker:JOHN GUMM] [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So in regards to your first question, from a functional perspective, the $1 million asset requirement is largely irrelevant under the existing regulatory scheme. Almost every village corporation and certainly every regional corporation will have more than $1 million in assets given the significant amount of land ownership that they own. So that is already not driving any aspect of compliant, you know, having to comply or file with the division.

And so removal of that does not actually change any of the underlying kind of component. In regards to your question about adopting a revenue kind of trigger, the issue is, from my perspective, from the village corporation's perspective, the question is what is the intent here? What is the goal that the legislature is trying to accomplish? Because again, under ANCSA, even though the larger village corporations that may have significant revenues still have obligations to provide to their shareholders copies of all of an annual report that mirrors SEC requirements as well as their audited financials. And their shareholders have the ability to make books and records requests of the corporation.

Their directors are still subject to all the fiduciary duties that apply to all directors of every corporation in Alaska. So there's still significant governance and public— governance and disclosure requirements that are already applicable under federal and state law and that don't require this additional step of, you know, generating proxy statements, filing them with the division online, or filing them with the division, et cetera. In regards to your second question about, you know, what other reports would be required, so under ANCSA, all Alaska Native corporations, they are exempt from SEC filing requirements. But ANCSA does say that all ANC Native corporations, regionals and village corporations, are required to provide their shareholders with an annual report that essentially contains the same information that a publicly traded corporation would have to provide to the SEC under SEC rules. So again, the ANCSA already requires village corporations of any size to provide that information to their shareholders.

They just— this amendment would just say that they would not need to file that with the Division of Banking and Securities, which doesn't really do a whole lot, frankly, from my point of view, because the division is not in the practice of reviewing those annual reports to determine if it contains all of the information that the SEC rules or other ANCSA rules would require them to provide. It's more just a repository for, you know, just kind of extra administrative step that is unnecessary and provides an additional administrative burden.

Follow, Mr. Chair. I don't want to dominate this question, this conversation. I have a question if you want to break. I don't want to break, but I will.

Yes, I will cede the floor. No worries. That's okay. So, Mr. Zloty, I have a couple of questions. My first one is if the desire for this change is to minimize reporting requirements, But it seems to be the message about this policy that you all have to have these reports for shareholders anyway.

What reports will small corporations not have to generate under this provision that they currently are now generating for their shareholders?

[Speaker:DAVID S. BUNTON] So the significant one that they would not have to generate under this as a result of this would be the detailed proxy statement that the Division's regulations currently require. These proxy statements require village and regional corporations to which they are subject to provide detailed biographical information about their directors, the information about financial transactions between directors and the corporation. Disclosures about their auditor, about how many fees they pay the auditor, disclosures about compensation of certain employees, and the disclosures about how the board is kind of managed in terms of what its committees are, as well as board attendance. Again, any of this information is otherwise available to the shareholders who simply need to ask under the— yes, Corporations Code, and they have a right.

Okay.

My next question is, you mentioned about exemption from SEC filing requirements. If this were a, a private corporation under a different construct outside of ANCSA, would that corporation have to file with the SEC those proxy statements with information that you discussed? I would think they generally would. It would a little bit depend on the nature of the business and also how many shareholders they have. Most of the SEC filing requirements are— they're triggered by the number of shareholders.

And certainly some of the bigger ones, and I think that the 500 shareholder base was templated on the SEC rules that were applicable at the time. So some of them would have to file if they were not otherwise— with the SEC if they were not otherwise exempt from SEC regulation by ANCSA. Gotcha. Okay, Senator Dunbar. Yeah, I think you got to it.

What I'd like is a more detailed sort of written description of this. So Congress exempted Native corporations from the SEC filings and created this alternate structure of reporting. Now you're asking to be exempted from that— not you, but this bill, you know, this revision exempts these Native, these village corporations from that alternate structure as well. And so, what I'm curious is, what information will the public now not get that they would get if this were a typical C corporation? I get that the shareholders can request it, but sort of what information is the public now not going to get that they would get if they were typical corporations?

So, if we could get that in writing, that would be very helpful because this is complicated corporate law. Um, and the second question was, and this is again for Mr. Uh, uh, Slotty or Soldy, um, so the, uh, the filings, the current filings to, um, the state, uh, the division, are those public or are those held confidentially by the division?

So, uh, Mr. Chair, to Representative Dunbar, and your both your questions are kind of related. So your second question, are the filings with the State Division of Public— Division of Banking and Securities, are they public record? Yes, they are. They are public record.

So this means that every Alaska Native Corporation that has to file with the division, their proxy statement as well as their annual report and their audited financials, those are all public documents. And notably, there is no other privately held corporation in Alaska that is a C corporation that has those same type of obligations. It has to make their audited financials, their annual report, and their proxy statement public records. So this is something— this is a unique obligation that is imposed on Alaska Native corporations. Your mom-and-pop C-corporation, their audited financials are not public records, but a village corporation's is.

And that is a significant concern because it is an unnecessary public disclosure of confidential financial information including information about how much individual employees make, which again, no other C corporation organized under Alaska law— there's nothing in Alaska law that requires those other C corporations to disclose the specific amount paid to their CEO or their top 5 employees or provide a public disclosure of their audited financials. So this regulatory scheme was adopted by the state of Alaska, not by ANCS or by federal government. And it's just at this point has grown unnecessary in— or grown to be too expansive in terms of the village corporations that it's reaching. Because again, the village corporations are hitting this 500 shareholder level not through anything other than just inheritance of shares. But once they do, then suddenly they're in the point of having to file their— have their audited financials, their proxy statements, their top 5 compensated employees all that suddenly becomes publicly available information, which again is unique and does not apply to other Alaska corporations.

Brief follow-up, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. Thank you. A lot of that, I understand, makes sense.

My question is, if they weren't a small mom-and-pop Alaska corporation, but they were, let's say, a multibillion-dollar C corporation, would they have to make public filings with the SEC that would be similar to what you just described, you know, things like CEO corporate compensation, that kind of thing? So it wouldn't be publicly filed with Alaska, but it would still be available to the American public through the SEC?

Some, but not all, not all of the information, like certainly not to the level of detail required by the division's regulations in terms of having to disclose, you know, the the criminal history of the directors, if there is any, disclosing family relationships, disclosing the top 5 compensated employees regardless of position. There's a significant number of elements in there that would not necessarily have to be included in an SEC filing. [Speaker:JAMES WYLIE] That— thank you, Mr. Chair. That is what I've been trying to get out— get at this whole time.

And if you could provide that in writing, I would really appreciate it. The sort of gap between if you're a large Alaska Native corporation and you're a large, say, Exxon or whomever, multibillion-dollar corporation who is under the SEC, what is the gap in the public information that is required to be disclosed? And I think that's sort of outside the purview of this bill, but that might also be an opportunity for reform where maybe some of that information can be— that disclosure can be reduced because we can't We don't have any control of the SEC to make that expand. So there is a fairness issue there. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Senator Yunt. Thank you, through the Chair. So a few of my questions that I had, Senator Dunbar did a great job of touching on.

To me, this— and this is maybe just me being a freshman here, but a lot of this seems to me like a big old bag of discrimination. Why do these guys, any size, 5 members or 5,000, have to disclose any of this stuff beyond what is federally required. And even that probably needs to be looked at again. I got over a dozen corporations, LLCs, S-Corps. I don't have to do any of this stuff.

Like, this to me, this is crazy. I think we need to figure out how to expand this and make things easier for these corporations and have even less red tape. So I got a lot of homework to do, and I got to study those gaps as well. But man, I think we I think we need to broaden this with a committee substitute that makes life 100 times easier on as many of these corporations as possible. I'll leave it at that.

Last call for questions. Yeah. No, I mean, I'll just say I guess I disagree with Senator Young to a certain degree. I agree with when it comes to small village corporations, absolutely. Just as it would be for ConocoPhillips or Exxon or— I don't want to say oil companies— Microsoft.

You know, we have these SEC filings. And you have to keep in mind that ANCSA exempted these now very large corporations from those filing requirements and created an alternative system. And the alternative system, I think, is probably too burdensome. I agree. Um, but, uh, I think a blanket exemption from that when you're also exempted from the SEC will remove a lot of information from the public domain that people sort of rely on.

Um, and, uh, so I, I am, I'm hesitant to expand this exemption to the number and size of corporations that I think this language sweeps up, but I am sympathetic to the argument that, uh, Mr. Um, Slotty made and others have made about this being too burdensome for small village corporations. That's absolutely true. And so I get that $1 million in assets, that's not the right way to do it because everybody has $1 million in assets when you look at the land they have. It's not 500 shareholders because that is also too large. But there has to be a way to differentiate between large corporations and small corporations.

Again, because some of these corporations are among the very largest in Alaska. They're already— they're exempted from SEC filings, and now they're also going to be exempted from this system. And that, I think, would not be in the public interest. And so we need to find some other way to differentiate between very large corporations and small village corporations so that we can accomplish the goal of taking this burden off of small village corporations. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar.

By way of comment from my perspective, and then I think at the end of this comment I'll have a question for Ms. Sivilich. Is it— understanding the unique nature of the ANCSA system and the corporations that it constructed as a unique entity here in Alaska, not replicated elsewhere, I wonder Um, what protections are there for shareholders in, in transparency for the documents that they receive as far as like shareholder statements and other things? Is there a way— this question is for you, Ms. Civilec— is there a way for shareholders to kind of check the work of the leadership of their corporation to know that the information that they're.

Receiving from their corporation is correct. What safeguards and kind of backstop is there currently? Is that something that Banking and Securities provides because of the information that you all collect about these corporations under current law?

Through the Chair, this is Ms. Sivilich. To answer your question, so the division receives these filings and they are are made publicly available, and we do not review them unless we receive a request for investigation. But our administrative authority allows us, if a shareholder has concerns about the information provided in the annual report or any of the proxy solicitation materials and they fall within the corporations that have to file with us, we can open an investigation into their complaint or their belief that there may be something misleading in these filings.

Understood. Thank you. So under this current— under this proposed change that we're thinking about, would that still be the case where a shareholder could go to Banking and Securities if they had a concern?

Yes, but only for corporations that fall within our jurisdiction. So Oh, sorry, excuse me, through the chair. Yes, only for our corporations that fall under our jurisdiction. So like I mentioned earlier, we have 59 corporations that meet filing— current filing requirements. If the amended language is adopted in its current form, as of right now, that would fall to approximately 22 regional and village corporations.

So only shareholders within those corporations could file a request for investigation with us. Just like right now, only shareholders can file— that are within the 59 corporations can file requests for investigations. We do receive requests from shareholders of all the other Native corporations that we don't have jurisdiction over, and we unfortunately— there's nothing that we can do to look into their claims.

Thank you for that answer. Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I appreciate the in-depth conversation and I agree with it, but what I'd like to know is what does the sponsor of this bill feel about this Section 2 that was added to the, to the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have discussed it with Representative Foster and he sees it as a friendly amendment. Mr. Chair. Very well.

Any final questions or comments on this draft proposed committee substitute? Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. I think we're currently discussing your objection to adopting the CS.

Yes, I intend to leave my objection in place until we get more information and answers to the questions. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome.

Anything further from members of the committee?

Well, thank you all for being here, um, to answer those questions. Hearing no further questions, we will open public testimony on House Bill 126. Public testimony is now open on this item. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify?

Hearing and seeing no one wishing to testify this time, we'll keep public testimony open on House Bill 126. Mr. LeBell— Mr. LeBowl, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to excuse you from the table. Do you have any, any final comments before we set this item aside? No, Mr. Chairman, just thank you and the committee for your time. Thank you very much.

This time we will set aside House Bill 126 for further consideration at a future meeting. That concludes our agenda for today. We appreciate everyone's enthusiastic questions and conversation. It's been a productive hearing. The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Wednesday, May 6th, where we will discuss some items.

And I don't have that list in front of me right now, but we will discuss them. They are posted on BASIS. We'll be right back here, 1:30, Wednesday. At this point in time, we are adjourned.