Alaska Legislature: House Finance, 3/27/26, 1:30pm

Sa. Sam. Sa. Sa.

Okay, I'm going to call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 1:37 p.m. on Friday March 27th and

present today, we do have Representative Stapp, Representative Moore, Representative Bynum, Co-Chair Shragi, Co-Chair Josephson.

Let's see here. I'm checking to see online do we have I don't think we have any other representatives online, do we?

Okay. Representative Galvin is here.

Looks like Representative Hannon will be here. She's at a bill hearing.

And then myself,

Co-Chair Foster.

And just a reminder,

folks can mute their cell phones.

We have two bills before us today,

and that is Senate Bill 146. We'll take that up first.

That is the REAA fund Mount Edgecombe teacher housing bill.

We will be introducing a committee substitute and we'll take public testimony and we can either entertain a motion to move the bill or if folks want to make amendments, we can set an amendment deadline, we can go either way on that one.

We'll take up House Bill 77, that is the mail theft bill by Representative Colomb, and we'll adopt a committee substitute and get an introductory hearing on that bill.

So with that, let's go ahead and jump right into Senate Bill 146 and

let's see first of all we are going to entertain a motion to adopt the CS

on that. And again, Senate Bill 146 is the REAA Mount Edgecombe Bill. And with that, Representative Shragi, if I could have a motion to adopt the CS.

Co-Chair Foster,

I move that the House Finance Committee adopt committee substitute for Senate Bill 146, work draft 34-LS-0717 backslash I, dated 3/26/26 as our working document.

Okay, and I'm going to go ahead and

object for purposes of discussion, and if I could have Representative Freer as well as her staff, Mr Calvin Zullo to come up to the table and put yourselves on the record and if you could walk us through the changes that were made with the CS and just so folks know, if there are questions we do have in the room

Mr Tim Gruesendorf from Senator Hoffman's office. We have online Lori Wein with DEED education and also Marie Marks legislative legal. So with that welcome Representative Freer.

Thank you again co-chair Foster, co-chair Josephson and co-chair Shragi as well as the House Finance Committee for hearing

Mm.

for hearing Senate Bill 146 again. I'll turn it over to my staff Calvin Zullo to go over the summary of changes.

Mr. Zullo?

Thank you co-chair Foster. For the record my name is Calvin Zullo. I'm staff to Representative Freer. I'll now read the summary of changes. On page one, line two, 'and relating to teacher housing' is removed from the title of the bill in the new CS.

Language in Section one of Version A from page one, line twelve through page two, line four, that adds funding for major maintenance projects for teacher housing as an allowable use of the REAA fund is removed from Version I of the bill.

Language in Section two of Version A on page two, lines eleven and twelve, that adds funding for major maintenance projects for teacher housing to the description of the REAA fund is removed from Version I. Co-Chair Foster, that completes the summary of changes.

Thank you. When when the motion was made, representative Schrage, were you asking us to adopt version i that's what I have in my script and should it be version a?

Co-Chair Foster, I believe it should be version I and that is what the motion was for was to adopt version I.

Okay. Oh, and so the old version was version A and we're going to I. Is that correct? Okay.

That's correct,

Correct.

Co-Chair Foster.

Thank you. Okay, so with that everyone's heard the changes, and do we have any questions regarding the CS? Representative Galvin.

Thank you, I appreciate that through the chair, and I think this may be a question

for the maker of the CS. I'm looking at the legal document here at page two paragraph two that if the changes to certain statutes made in the enclosed draft were challenged, court might review how much the fund is spent on Mount Edgecombe High School and consider whether with less available to spend on REAAs

and so forth. So I'm trying to piece together why we have these changes, but I think it's in consideration of what

I have before me from legislative legal,

but I wanted to get that just out on the record for the public to understand.

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly. So we're mostly removing the housing part of it. And is that because we're trying to match up to legal advice or is that

for some other reason, because of how the fund is already articulated or what are the reasons for that?

Representative Freer.

Thank you. Through the chair to representative Galvin. No that's not the purpose so as you know House Bill 174 was vetoed last year.

Mm-hmm.

And we are trying to this is our attempt to make it more veto proof. We worked with the Governor's legislative liaison their office to find out what was, you know what would make it more palatable.

Got it. Okay.

And

this was identified.

Thank you. Okay.

And I believe you are referencing the legal memo,

Representative Galvin, and I think that is something that maybe should at least be touched on.

Representative Freer, do you want to maybe open and then we can go to Marie Marks for details if needed.

Representative Freer, can you maybe touch on that?

Yeah,

I could briefly,

but we also have Mr.

Gruesendorf from Senator Hoffman's office that might be a little bit more familiar as they've

ran this bill for several years. It appears that this legal memo or it sounds like this legal memo accompanies any of the bills and has accompanied any of these bills, I think Mr Gruesendorf could tell you that while there are concerns that there while there may be constitutional concerns that were identified in Kasayulie versus the state, their office has worked with the folks who

had the original lawsuit to and they had no issues with Mount Edgecombe being a part of the REAA, if that is a

And he's nodding his head that I believe that's a clear answer to that. But

And I wonder, Mr Grusendorf, if you could come up and just give us a little bit of background,

um just so folks can kind of put this into perspective and then we'll go to mrs Marks online. Um if you could put yourself on the record, uh Mr Grusendorf.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the record, my name is Tim Gruesendorf, Staff to the Senate Finance Committee.

When

the Senate introduced this bill four years ago, Senate Bill 113, we received the same memo and I brought it to the senator and showed it to him and he told me that he had gone to the folks that filed the Kasayulie case.

and said that they were they did not have an issue with Mount Edgcombe becoming part of the REA funds because many of their students from the region attend Mount Edgcombe and they thought it was a good thing to do.

It's the irony to me is is that when we started this bill it actually started out as a teacher housing bill for the REA region and then when we start having issues with Mount Edgcombe it kind of the focus of it switched and now

The bill is where it stands now,

but the Senate does concur with the changes that were made in the CS.

They have no issues with what is done here today.

Okay, thank you. And I think that's helpful to know that your office has reached out to the folks with the Casali group and they're okay with it. And I think to get to the core of the issue, technically Mount Edgecombe is a state-owned run facility and not technically REAA, but most of the

folks who attend this school are from REAA areas, and so there's the question as to whether or not this school is entitled to be able to use REAA funds. So do we have any further questions on that? And Representative Galvin?

Thank you. I do a little bit because I'm not a lawyer,

but I would maybe I think it's helpful to know for those who have.

have five we're part of the initial case where they stand on it but i i also just want to make sure that we're following through also with the judgment in a way that is appropriate that said mind you i'm supportive of this bill but i want to make sure that it works that we're not going to be questioned later because of

uncertainty I think that it's very helpful to hear from those from that community and from the leaders from that time period but I think also it might be helpful to hear from ledge legal as to why they are still carrying this on after they I'm sure after the senator has heard from that community as well I just want to make sure that we're

Crossing our T's and dotting our I's.

And that's good. Definitely something. And I'll come back to Ms. Marks here, but I think alleged legal is just flagging a potential issue. It

Okay.

sounds like it doesn't sound like it would be an issue, but it could be an issue and I'll let Ms. Marks speak to that. Ms. Marie Marks, if you could put yourself on the record and speak to that.

Yeah, per the record,

this is Marie Marks with Legislative Legal Services,

and to the chair,

one of the things, as you noted,

one of the things that Legislative Legal Services does is identify issues and concerns just to help the legislature make informed decisions,

and whenever the legislature seeks to make a change to AS 1411.

0-25 and 411030 we will always flag that for you the legislature because those statutes were a crucial part of the settlement and the consent decree in the case Kaseli v. State and as you know Kaseli v. State

With litigation over whether the state of Alaska was providing adequate educational facilities in rural areas and so we'll always flag it to make sure the legislature's aware that this was part of the settlement those statutes were actually adoption of those statutes were kind of crucial to the settlement itself and so whenever you make a change to them it can revive issues relating to the Kasaili case.

And if someone challenged it and said, hey, first of all, you are, you know, upsetting the settlement agreement,

and then second,

they may say,

well,

when you are putting money toward, for example, here Mount Edgecombe High School, you're making less money available to fund rural schools,

and that was the issue there in Kasai. Ultimately,

we,

as ELA Legal just flags issues for you.

is a policy call on whether to not move forward.

I'm sure you do that after talking, you know, with the interested parties,

I think would definitely reduce the risk of this becoming a legal issue in the future.

Uh.

Represented Galvin.

Thank you, co-chair Foster. I appreciate that. I think that I don't want to beat the dead horse. That sounds like a reasonable uh that we're proceeding is reasonable. I just want to call out though that there is a mention in here that the state needs to still be providing equitable and adequate funding to rural schools through the C_ I_P_ process and I um I look forward to us actually doing that. I think we need to do better.

better. And I think this may be a step in the right direction. I think it sounds like that's what the senator and the representative from Outiakvik intend and so you know I support it. I think we need to make sure we are blocking away money for that specific purpose. So thank you.

Great, thank you.

Let's see here.

I am just going to.

Maybe cross our T's, dot our I's in open public testimony, we do have a new CS before us and just want to make sure that uh we're allowing the test uh public to testify if they would like to and so I'm gonna go ahead and open public testimony on SB 146.

And is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on S_B_ 146, the Mott Edgecombe Bill, seeing none? Is there anyone online who would like to testify?

And I don't believe we have anybody, so with that um if folks would like to submit written testimony they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. Um so I'm gonna go ahead and close public testimony on S_B_ 146.

And do we have any other questions for the sponsor or alleged legal regarding the bill? I don't see any. Was there any intent to submit amendments? Because if

Court

there's

reporter.

Foster.

Sure, Representative

Oh,

Freer.

Thank you. I just wasn't sure if you removed your objection on the adopting the CS.

Uh thank you. That is uh we we do need to do that. Um but I wanted to first see if um

There was going to be any desire of the committee to submit amendments. Okay, I don't see any.

And so with that, there is no need to set an amendment deadline. And sort of Representative Gelbin, did you have a

Thank you, Chair Foster. I just want to make sure we have enough for quorum here.

Okay,

we have enough. We're doing it.

Correct?

Yes.

And so with that I will remove my objection to the adoption of the CS which is version I of the bill. Are there any objections to adoption of the CSC? None. Is there any desire to move the bill from committee?

Yes, please.

Okay. Is there anyone Representative Shiragi, would you like to make a motion?

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move that the House Finance Committee pass work order

Yeah.

Excuse me, pass the committee substitute for Senate Bill 146 work draft 34 LS0717I from committee with attached fiscal note.

Object.

Okay, we have an objection.

Just for a comment,

Sure.

I just want to make sure that we make mention that as important as these rural schools are and we owe it to them to get them up to speed,

we also owe it to these schools to make sure that there are high quality teachers within those schools.

And I wanted to make sure we put that on the record because both of those pieces are important to me and I really look forward to supporting this bill and thank you.

Okay, the objection is removed. Representative Stapp, did you want to make a comment? I'll object for purpose of discussion, Representative Stapp.

Just quick at ease. Sure, brief.

Brief at ease.

House Finance back on record at 1:54 p.m. Representative Shrogy, would you like to restate the motion?

Sure, I'd be happy to, Co-Chair Foster. I think there's a desire to have individual recommendations added to that motion. So I move Senate Bill 146, Work Draft 34 LS0717I from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

Sure.

Okay, seeing no objections, Senate Bill 146 which is work draft 34 LS0717I is moved out of house finance with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note, one note and

if folks could be sure to sign the committee report. Representative Freer, any comments?

No closing comments for the record. Representative Robin Neff-Freer to the co-chair. I don't have any closing comments, just want to state just grateful for the committee for hearing the bill and passing it out a second time.

Great, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay with that thank you Mr. Gruzendorf, Mr. Zullo.

Next we're going to go jump right into the next bill, and that is House Bill 70.

seventy-seven, that's the mail theft bill. We do have a committee substitute for House Bill 77 and I would entertain a motion for the CS Representative Shiragi.

Seven.

Co-chair Foster. I move that the House Finance Committee adopt committee substitute for House Bill 77,

work draft 34-LS0144-O dated 3/25/26 as our working document.

Okay, and I'm going to go ahead and object for purpose of discussion,

and if I could invite up Representative Colomb as well as her staff,

Emily Durfee.

And if you could introduce the bill and explain the changes that were made in the CS and from there

we'll go to questions after that, and it looks like we are not doing public testimony or fiscal notes on that, so we're just focusing on the bill today. So with that, welcome Representative Colomb.

Right, thank you. Good afternoon,

Co-Chairs Foster,

Joseph,

and Schrage,

members of the Committee. For the record, I am Representative Julie Colombe, serving the Anchorage Hillside.

For the record, this is Emily Durfee, staff to Representative Cologne.

So today before you is H.B. seventy seven, a bill that was brought to me by an A_P_D_ detective, who we will hear from a little later. This bill establishes mail theft as a state crime closely aligned with federal punishments. The vision behind the bill is to give Alaska the ability to help combat mail theft, and therefore identity fraud and financial theft. Just earlier this year, an Anchorage woman was indicted and arrested for

arrested for a bank fraud scheme that involved mail theft and aggravated identity theft.

The financial losses estimated from that fraud totaled over $50,000.

It's not just an Anchorage problem.

I've been hearing from Fairbanks,

Mat-Su,

and rural areas about the increase in mail theft activity in their areas.

It is especially hitting senior populations hard as they tend to receive high amounts of sensitive documents.

documents through the mail, leaving them particularly vulnerable.

The need for another tool to address these concerns is clear. HB 77 provides this tool and allows state resources to be more effectively to more effectively fight this criminal activity. And whatever the will of the chair is, we can go through the sectional explanation changes or go right into the presentation.

Maybe if we could jump into the presentation then also would like to note that we do have two people who are online for invited testimony and so after the presentation we'll do that and then we'll come back to questions.

So with that, thanks Representative Gallum.

For the record, Emily Durfee, staff to Representative Clone. House Bill 77 aims to address mail theft trends that have been rising nationally and in the state of Alaska.

The U.S. Treasury's Finantum Crimes Enforcement Network flagged $688 million worth of suspicious transactions related to mail theft and check fraud over just six months in 2023.

as well as NASDAQ finding $21 billion in the Americas related to check fraud losses.

In Alaska,

one in 10 Alaskans is victim to package theft,

with 74,010 Alaskans being affected over a three-month period in a Capital One report. In that same report,

there is an estimated 27,720.

20 households impacted statewide.

That is a lower bound set on an estimation in that Capital One report,

so it could be higher.

And then also of notes, Alaska Native and Indian communities have lost over $12 million to fraud in 2023.

So HB 77 gives us another tool in the box. Currently, with there being no specific state law addressing mail theft,

officers have to prove that the monetary value of mail stolen meets or exceeds $750, or they can wait for a bigger crime to be committed, such as identity fraud. This gives law enforcement a clear tool to act and open state resources.

This to come alongside the federal courts in prosecuting these crimes.

These are some other states that have implemented similar legislation.

There are 18 on this slide, and we did work to research these bills as we were drafting our version of this legislation.

So HB 77 works,

the tool that it gives us is that it identifies mail theft as theft in the second degree,

which is in Alaska a class C felony.

In Alaska, a class C felony in statute is already established as being punishable of up to five years in prison with a fine of up to $50,000, and that's an and or. This is the closest thing on the books we have.

have to the federal punishment for male theft,

which is up to five years in prison or a fine of $250,000.

And then just for the committee's understanding,

the bottom left-hand corner of the slide shows what a Class C felony's punishable sentencing time is for being in prison.

It's based on prior offenses prior record.

So if there is no prior offenses, right now it would be a zero to two years punishment in prison or if they have more than one prior felony,

it can go up to the three to five.

three to five year range, and this is also to show you that this is not the most extreme class of felony,

but it is a harsher punishment than the misdemeanors that we have on the books.

This gives the committee an idea of some of the general theft and identity fraud statutes that we currently have to work within the system.

You'll notice that each one of these either needs monetary value to be proven,

starting at either the $750 or more or the $25,000 or more.

In other cases we do have to wait for criminal impersonation to happen. The department of law provided um the house judiciary committee with a list of related statutes, but it is not an exhaustive list. And that should be on basis.

If the committee does have any questions and it's all right with the chairs,

I think that our hope is to hear from invited testifiers first,

but then I would be happy to answer any questions the committee would have.

Okay. I was very tempted to just ask a couple of basic questions, but maybe we will just listen to the invited testifiers. They might answer some of the questions that might be out there and then we'll go to questions.

So first,

but I think I did see I was going to.

I threw myself on the list and then I think we had Representative Stapp and Josephson.

Okay,

let me just write that down really quick.

Also I'd like to note that we have with us Representative Hannan who is at a bill hearing and so we're going to go to invited testimony and first up we have

Let's see, Ms.

Tiffany Lohman, I believe,

and that's with the Anchorage Police Department.

Detective,

if you can state your name and your title and affiliation. It looks like you're calling in from Anchorage. If you can put yourself on the record.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Tiffany Lohman. It's L-O-U-G-H-M-A-N.

And I am calling from Anchorage and I'm calling on behalf of myself,

but.

Yes, I am a law enforcement officer.

If you could maybe get a little closer to the mic, we might be able to hear you a little better.

Okay.

Is that better?

Yes, it is.

Is this better?

Yes, it is.

Okay. My name is Tiffany Loveman,

and I have been a sworn police officer and detective for over 32 years.

During my tenure as a police officer and detective,

I've investigated a wide array of crimes,

burglary,

theft,

sexual assault,

embezzlement, and homicide.

While many of those cases received a justifiable amount of support,

I observed repeatedly crime of male theft continually tying law enforcement's hands with no ability to make arrests,

provide justice for victims,

nor provide court-ordered help for perpetrators.

While there is a federal law addressing mail theft,

the stark reality is that mail theft cases rarely meet the threshold for the U.S. Attorney's Office acceptance for federal prosecution.

I'm testifying today in support of HB77 and the critical importance of enacting a state-level statute to address the crime of mail theft.

It's easy to take for granted how crucial traditional mail is to our daily lives, especially the lives of elderly and vulnerable populations.

Traditional mail still serves as a lifeline for many Alaskans,

not only for personal correspondence,

but for receiving government documents,

payments,

tax communication,

and bill paying.

Mail theft is becoming an increasingly prevalent crime,

and HB 77 is essential to protect both individuals and Alaskan businesses alike from harmful consequences.

Mail theft is a serious crime with wide-reaching effects,

and it's on the rise.

In 2025,

there were an estimated 104 million packages stolen in over 300 million.

housing reports incidents of mail theft with mail theft related check fraud sharply on the rise it's nearly doubled that number is likely lower than the actual number of crimes as many victims have never reported it either because they didn't realize it happened or because they don't understand how to report it

Mail theft isn't just about the theft of a letter or document.

It reaches much further.

These crimes typically lead to identity theft,

significant financial losses,

loss of personal or legal documents,

delayed or missing deliveries of things as crucial as medication.

Despite the severity of the problem,

as Alaska law enforcement,

we currently face significant challenges with prosecuting mail theft.

This is where a state mail theft statute becomes essential.

Mail theft disproportionately affects elderly and vulnerable populations.

Many older adults may have limited access to digital services and therefore elderly victims rely heavily on traditional mail to receive documents crucial to their everyday needs,

social security checks,

bank and pension statements,

medical correspondence are all prime targets for identity theft.

These same individuals also often lack the financial means or physical ability to get to a post office to walk in mailboxes or construct a locking mailbox themselves.

Even with that,

locking mail receptacles are not invulnerable.

Older and vulnerable adults may not be as familiar with modern security measures,

making them easier targets for criminals.

The theft of these items causes significant disruptions in their daily lives.

Lead Smith medical treatments, unpaid bills, and financial loss.

Older individuals may have physical or cognitive impairments to make it harder to detect or recover from mail theft.

They may not notice their mail is missing or may not be able to navigate the process of reporting the theft or replacing stolen documents.

Mail theft can be financially devastating for elderly individuals,

especially on fixed incomes,

or if they have limited financial resources.

If a thief steals a check,

credit cards, or other financial documents, it could result in significant financial hardships for elderly victims,

many of whom may already live on tight budgets.

Older adults are often more socially isolated,

meaning they may have fewer people to rely on for help in noticing or addressing mail theft.

They might not have someone nearby who can assist them in tracking lost or stolen mail,

contacting authorities, or securing replacement documents.

They often have a strong sense of trust in established systems such as the Postal Service and a violation of that trust can be particularly upsetting.

The emotional toll of having their personal mail stolen can lead to anxiety,

fear,

sense of helplessness,

which further impacts their overall well-being.

We need protection at a state level against mail theft.

HB 77 would not only empower state and local law enforcement with the tools to more effectively combat mail theft,

but also serve as a deterrent for other crimes and will raise awareness about the issue.

I also think it's important to note that being charged with a felony does certainly not mean automatic prison time.

A felony level charge is critical as it gives the district attorney's office room for plea offers.

And avenues for those perpetrators that are stealing mail to have court-ordered treatment options.

Misdemeanor theft offers no true accountability,

does not serve as a deterrent, and limits the court's ability to give those court-ordered treatment programs designed for helping rehabilitate offenders.

As a law enforcement officer with over 30 years of experience,

I am asking you to help Alaska law enforcement protect all citizens and businesses in our great state by passing HB 77.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, Ms.

Loafman. I'm going to go to the next invited testifier and then we'll go to questions.

So with that, thank you, Ms.

Loafman.

Next we've got Mr.

David Larson. Looks like you're calling in from Wickenburg, Arizona. If you can state your name and your affiliation.

Yes, good afternoon. This is David L.

Larson.

The audio I received from your office is not the best, so I hope you can hear me better.

I'm a longtime resident of Alaska,

some 60 years. I'm one of the older folks mentioned earlier who has suffered this problem.

I travel some.

A few years ago on one of my travels I received a call from Anchorage District Attorney stating that local police had recovered some of my mail and she advised me to lock down my credit accounts,

which I did. When I got home my son sat down and

It changed all of my financial systems, so I didn't write checks anymore.

He made them secure accounts,

so that kind of changed my life.

He locked down my bank accounts, which means that I no longer can bank by mail,

which is a little bit, a bank by.

email or online which makes it a little bit difficult and it's got ongoing situation for me then she did this person did try to establish credit using my name and a credit card using my name but neither neither of those were successful thank goodness so I support passing such a law

Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr.

Larson.

Going to questions, I've got myself in the line and then Representative Stapp and Josephson.

And I see we do have some legal folks in the room.

And I would like to either invite one or both,

Ms.

Kate Talmadge and Ms.

Casey Schroeder,

whoever would like to come up. Looks like Ms.

Schroeder.

And, um

thanks for thanks for joining us here.

My question is just on slide three, it just had specified, it said officers must prove the monetary value of the stolen mail exceeds $750.

And my question is, I assume that if somebody comes into your yard on your personal property and they steal $500 worth of power tools,

that was a criminal offense. But if those power tools are in a mailbox,

in somebody's mail?

is that's not a and it's under the $750 threshold and I just assumed there's a lower dollar amount so anyway I was just a little confused that said officers must prove the monetary value is in excess of $750 so I guess the question maybe is kind of twofold and that is that dollar amount because I thought that people could still be in trouble for stealing if they steal $500 worth of stuff

And that's the first part of the question. The second part is, what if it's in your yard, power tools versus a box that's in your yard that has power tools and it's coming from the mail? So Ms. Schroeder, thanks for being here.

And if you could put yourself on the record.

For the record, Casey Schroeder, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Law. Mr. Chairman, the $750 threshold is the felony level threshold. If it's under that, but so if it's between $250 and $750, that would be an A misdemeanor. And if it's under $250 value, it would be a B misdemeanor. So you're correct, it would still be criminal behavior.

Okay.

And setting aside whether this may be a criminal trespass or a burglary, but just maybe somebody

taking something from your yard, if they take power tools, we're going to value the power tools whether they're in a box or whether they're sitting out

on the lawn. So we're going to value the power tools to determine the level of the offense.

Okay, thank you. Nice, succinct answers. Uh appreciate that. Um

And then I guess maybe another question is our making stealing of mail a Class C felony in this legislation.

What if the mail that's being stolen is junk mail? Is that how does that work, Ms. Schroeder?

Through the um chairman, Mr chairman uh this would still be it would still be a Class C felony, it's male, so it encompasses all male. If there are items within the male that have a high value amount or that are different things, we might be able to bring additional charges, but the male itself, regardless of whether it's a letter from your mother or junk male, um it would it would qualify as for the Class C felony.

Okay, thank you very much. With that, Representative Stapp.

And then I'm going to have Representative Josephson, Representative Hannam, Representative Bynum. So, Representative Stapp.

Yeah, I think Co-Chair Foster, I guess through the chair, I mean, Representative Coulomb, thank you for the bill.

I know that co-chair said we're not going to do fiscal notes, but all of them are zero anyway. So I'm not entirely sure why the bill's in finance. But I will say as someone who not only had their mail stolen, had my entire mailbox stolen once because it had a lock on it. So they just decided to yank it right out of the ground and throw it in the back of a truck. So now I don't have a lock on my mailbox because it was a big pain to replace the entire post and everything.

I know in Fairbanks, we had our head of the state troopers also get his mail stolen, which couldn't go well. But every time, you know, you talk to the authorities about it, they basically tell you like, oh, there's nothing they can do because it's just a misdemeanor anyways. And then they probably won't even go to trial. So I appreciate the bill. Just my quick question for you is outside of the public testimony, have you talked to, you know, again, Captain Spitzer, where I live, as far as what he

and other people at AST.

see it and maybe local law enforcement and what their opinion of this bill is and if it helps actually prosecute that through the chair.

Representive Cologne.

Uh so through the chair to representative staff, I have not talked to them, but I w I would say that maybe Miss Loafman has a lot to say about that because she's an APD.

Okay. Ms. Loafman.

Yeah, I can speak to that.

During the creation and the very initial stages of this bill,

I did contact the district attorney's office in Anchorage and received their blessing.

I also reached out to U.S. Attorney's Office,

received their blessing as well.

And I also reached out to the, at the time, the commissioner for Alaska Tribbers who blessed it as well.

Just another further note when I came down last time to testify in person,

ended up sitting next to another law enforcement officer on the plane and he was elated.

So I think every law enforcement officer here is very much in support of it. It's so frustrating when you pull over a car and talk to the boarding and it is just filled to the rim with mail and you don't know what's in that mail.

There is no statute that really fit, so we absolutely fit it.

Yep.

Represents go.

I just said thank the sponsor for the bill. Obviously I'm a co-sponsor and it's really annoying when people steal your mail.

Thanks.

Okay next up I've got Representative Josephson.

Thank you Chairman Foster.

For the sponsor, would the bill be enhanced by something that indicated that a male receptacle could just be a door stoop um for the placement of like an Amazon box? Is that

Um so to co-chair Justison, are you asking if the bill contains a difference between a male receptacle and a door stoop? Is that

I'm just trying to make sure I understand the question.

So representative Josephson?

Sure. So I'm looking at the definitions of authorized depository and mail receptacle, and it seems to be a container of some sort and folks of course get boxes delivered that aren't placed in containers at all.

Mm-hmm.

Should we account for that or not worry about that?

If I could have my staff answer that.

Ms. Zurfy, through the chair.

Through the chair, this is Emily Durfee to Representative Josephson.

Josephson.

Page two of the CS, version O of the bill, line 29, includes any location used by a private mail delivery company, United States Postal Service, or a postal customer for the placement of outgoing mail or the receipt of incoming mail, so it would include just a porch for packages.

So it would include just a porch for packages.

Okay.

Representative Josephson.

If the sponsor is satisfied with that, then I guess

that's satisfactory. Do we know my second question is do we know whether DOC itself will be issuing a fiscal note on population management costs?

Why do you ask?

I you

Representative Colon.

Yeah, so um to co-chair Josephson, I believe I do have a correctional fiscal note or did it oh no I guess we didn't get one from corrections, but in the prior hearing that was uh brought up um we have a lot of departments with zero fiscal notes. Um it doesn't seem like they thought it may w make much impact and that they they did not contribute a fiscal note. We could request that if you'd like.

Representative Josephson?

No, I mean I mean I suppose the absence of a fiscal note is itself a statement. I don't know. I just assumed that there would be some growth in the prison population that would be reflected in a fiscal note. But

I can investigate that on my own, I guess, offline.

I don't know.

Okay. Okay.

If I may,

Sure,

to the chair,

Representative

Foster.

Colon.

It

To Co-Chair Josephson, so mail theft is not easy to prosecute. It's not easy to get these guys.

And so I think when I originally put the bill together and I worked with Ms. Schroeder a lot on this bill,

it didn't seem,

these are,

this gives the state a tool to get the really big bad actors.

And so I don't, none of the departments that gave the fiscal note,

none of them that I've talked

to are anticipating a ton of people going to jail. What we're trying to do is increase the fines and increase the threat to those people that continually do it.

Okay. Okay, next up I have Representative Hannon, Bynum, Galvin, and myself. Representative Hannon?

Thank you, Co-chair Foster, and I think I'm going to start with sponsor and then have a couple questions for the Department of Law.

I appreciate the concern, especially when mail theft leads to identity theft in that, you know, sort of endless trail of complications in someone's lives.

But I guess I have a concern for making it a felony when, and I'm not going to choose junk mail, but it's your Amazon order of cleaning products that are stolen. And

If that were stolen from my car, it's a misdemeanor. But now if it's stolen from my mail, it's a felony, which disrupts my

right to have a gun, to vote. And so I'm looking to understand whether there's any gray area of the prosecution of them or whether the Department of Law in prosecuting identity theft crimes say we need to get this to a felony level so that we can prosecute the complex big actors. But I don't want to see

You know, and they're not pranks, but low-level vandalism crimes clogging up our court system and preventing people for you know when you're a convicted felon there are some long-term ramifications. And so just trying to figure out in the years you've worked on that where how that needle has been threaded.

Re

Representative Colon.

So through the Chair to Representative Foster, and I would say Ms. Schroeder might have some insight in this as well, but the issue that we're finding is that

there's mail that doesn't have a value to it. So someone's Social Security card or a statement of your retirement benefits or things that people can use to take your identity and take things right now could be a magazine because it's just a piece of mail. The only thing is my understanding and I don't want to get into Ms.

Schroeder's lane,

but they do have an access device which is like a

credit card. Okay, that's something of value and they can prosecute that. My understanding with talking with the Department of Law and Ms. Loafman, this is not something that they would actually pursue, someone taking with intent a magazine out of your mailbox. This is they don't have the bandwidth for that. They would still triage the cases, right, and make sure that

this is something that led to something else. And so right now, yeah,

if you steal a credit card, you can prosecute under that.

But this could possibly put an additional charge of mail theft. If someone's opening your mailbox or going onto your property and stealing a box,

that's a crime.

It could be your cleaning supplies or it could be, you know, power tools.

But the bill,

the bill is trying to give

those opportunities for the prosecutors to weigh like prior offenses, what was stolen, was it intent, was it

in their backyard? Was it in their mailbox?

A lot of this, the felony charge,

that's what happens now. That's what the feds do now. It's just that they don't really prosecute mail theft because they have other things going on. And so my bill is just continuing what the federal charges are, except for my, the penalty is $50,000 up to $50,000 and the feds do up to $250,000. But I didn't know if

Ms. Schroeder wants to add on to that at all.

Ms. Schroeder, can you speak to that?

Casey Schroeder, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Through the chair to Representative Hannon, I would concur in that we would view a case that came in under this subsection just like we would view any other case that would come in. We would analyze all of the facts, all of the surrounding facts, including the person's criminal history and maybe what else was going on, does this person have a substance abuse problem, you know, that kind of thing, and we would determine whether or not

we would even move forward with the prosecution. And then if we were to issue an offer, what that offer would look like. But that is the same as any other case that we would get in the screening process. But while we may not be likely to prosecute somebody who is just stealing a magazine out of a mailbox and they don't have any other criminal history and it's just a one-off,

obviously the language of the law allows that so we would.

would obviously screen that and view do that screening process and determine whether or not we would be prosecuting and or issuing an offer.

Representative Hannan, follow up.

Follow-up, thank you. Um thank you Chair Foster. So Ms Schroeder, you would feel as a prosecutor with the bill as the committee substitute is drafted, that you would have the discretion if it wasn't materials of banking nature and identity theft that

The prosecution could happen for a lesser charge than a C felony.

Through the chair to Representative Hannon. That is correct. And that's the same as any any other case.

That's, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, and next question is represented of Bynum and Galvin, Foster represent of Bynum.

Thank you, co-chair. Foster through the chair,

Representative Kulom, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Who would have thought that adding 10 words to statute would be so complicated?

But with that being said, the, on page two, line 11,

the second half of that part eight, it says an article within mail.

Just a little curious of trying to get clarification on the addition of the technical language of saying an article within mail, as opposed to just saying is mail, and that's probably a legal question.

Ms Schroeder?

Through the chair to Representative Bynum, we view as article within mail to be the contents of the mail. So sometimes what we see is somebody takes something like a package, they discard the box, and then they've got the contents. And so we would use that's that would be the language we would use to charge under that for that conduct.

Thank you.

Okay. Representative Galvin?

Thank you.

Co-Chair Foster, thank you for bringing this forward.

When we hear that 74,000 Alaskans affected in the last three months, this is a problem. It is clearly, clearly a problem, and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate hearing from APD, and I need to bring up a couple of questions because it's such a big problem. My concern is around enforcement.

I appreciate that we think that this is not going to take any more resources to make sure that these folks are followed up with.

But I can tell you that in my district alone,

which is midtown Anchorage,

when people get a car stolen even,

what happens is nowadays people are picking up the phone to call the police,

and unless somebody's on my lot and with a gun,

I mean, we're told.

You will um go online and file your report and sometimes an officer follow follows up within a day or two, but it's they're very impacted and um and so I just I want to comment about that because I'm I'm concerned um that

As much as we want to see these taken down,

these folks especially who are bad actors,

I want to make sure that we're doing whatever we can do to help the organizations.

all of those who are doing the enforcement to get what they need.

Last week, for example, we were told here, sitting right here where we are,

that the prosecutors and the district attorneys are completely over inundated with work.

And so when I hear somebody's going to be going through the mail, figuring out whether they're bad actors or not,

figuring out whether it was a one-time thing or they're repeated actors,

that that takes time. And so I guess this question might be to Ms.

Schroeder.

Really? You don't feel like you need any more help?

And, you know, could you give me the nuance here with regard to this versus what we heard from, I think it was Ms.

Kemp last week.

If you could, like, what is the difference and how is it that you don't need help?

Ms. Schroeder.

Through the chair to Representative Galvin, you are correct. The criminal division is requesting some supplementals and some additional money.

Typically how we analyze fiscal notes is whether or not we think the impact from that legislation itself is going to require us to hire another person.

We don't believe that this at this time we don't believe that this will have that type of impact.

We will continue to prosecute given the resources that we are given from the legislature, and we will take our priorities from direction from the legislature. We will always prioritise crimes against a person over property crimes. And then we'll, from there, we will prioritise felony level crimes over misdemeanour crimes, and that's kind of how we allocate our resources, and we do that based on the direction from the legislature.

Um so I cannot tell you that this is going to be the number one thing that we prosecute. However, it is a tool in the toolbox. It allows for that prosecution to be at a felony level whereas currently it generally is not at a felony level. Um and it is another tool in the toolbox. I'll just say that.

Follow up if I may?

Representative Galvin.

Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Is it possible to hear, I don't know if the um maybe you would know better um Representative Colombe if

I think you had a testifier from APD. If they would be aware of what resources are available to ensure that there's enforcement of this, because I like it and I want to make sure that we have the resources, especially for what you're calling the bad actors.

We need to make sure that there's something that's making a difference in terms of overall behaviour.

Yeah, so co-chair Foster,

I think Ms.

Lopeman's still on the line if you'd like to respond.

Okay, and that was representative Colum,

and we're going to go to Ms.

Lofman online.

Yes.

Yes.

Generally these cases are part of another case that's already being investigated whether it's a burglary or a traffic stop or something else.

So it's not like when someone calls, a citizen calls the police department they're running out to the report of a male stuff.

But it's more during the investigation of something else and the male is you know come across like two o'clock in the morning a car full of male.

And like was just previously said it just gives us another tool in our

our toolbox to be able to address that particularly with some of these repeat offenders that we can see week after week which carpool the mail.

Follow up.

Follow up.

Thank you. So again,

this may be a question for Ms.

Schroeder because maybe I'm not understanding the law correct as we're changing it to. It sounded to me like we are going to remove.

uh some of the monetary value, and so if that's the case,

it's not just getting at the the big players.

I I think I hear what she's saying that if you pull someone over then you see a big stack of mail, it's a big red flag that something's happening. I I appreciate that, and unless they're a hoarder or something, which is also possible. Um and so

But if it's, if the law is saying that it could be junk mail that would be permissible for them to be then held accountable as a felon,

I'm just not sure how we would articulate that. It it seems to leave a lot of room for discretion.

And maybe that is proper in

Writing laws, but I'm not sure about that. I'd like to hear more from you, I guess, Ms. Schroeder, because discretion sounds a little uh I I think it's important to have some, but I don't know how that seems like a really wide berth.

Ms Schroeder.

Through the chair to Representative Galvin, I I agree with the previous testifier that likely how these cases are going to come in is they're probably going to come in with other charges. Um I don't see us pursuing very often stand-alone male theft cases.

And the current law requires us to value the mail, and most of the time we cannot assess a value to the mail, so it's you know Publish or it's Clearing House or whatever, um it we can't put a value on that, and so it would be a B misdemeanor.

Um this says if it's mail it's going to be a C felony, and that includes mail that has something very important in it or mail that does not have something important in it, and that is the policy call that's made in this bill. And that

that that is for the committee to decide.

Final follow up?

Representative Galvin.

Thank you. This is for Representative Colom and maybe her staff. In looking at this problem when you realized it was a big monster of a problem, one in ten, and so Alaskans want to actually get at the people who swipe our Amazon. Not that we want them to be called felons, but that is certainly something we do care about. And I especially care about

the extra level of maybe fraudulent identity theft.

But I'm curious to know if you considered an educational aspect of this bill,

like something that would help Alaskans know,

listen,

this is now you're a felon if you go messing with the box.

Like, is that something that was in consideration so that we could actually get change of behavior on all levels, not just the bad actors. But when I say bad actors, I mean also let's lessen the pranks and things like that.

How did you consider that?

Oh,

Representative

uh

Colom.

Do you want to take a go?

Okay, I'll throw this to my staff.

Ms. Durfee.

This is Emily Durfee. Through the chair to Representative Galvin, this is already a felony at the federal level.

Mm-hmm.

And I don't know if that fully answers your question,

but this kind of just brings us into alignment with that.

Follow-up?

Representative Galvin.

Do you think that in your study, do you believe that Alaskans who participate in the 74,000, I assume it was this

incidents are aware that it's a felony? And that's, that's the question. I'm trying to understand the awareness aspect.

Representative Maloney. So through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Galvin, so

let's go back to SB91.

Mm-hmm.

At the time I was a retail manager, and I can tell you that spread like wildfire through the criminal sector.

They talk to each other, they figure out where they can get an angle where they can't. I mean if the department wants to do an education campaign, that would be awesome. And if and when this bill ever passes, you know, you make a big splash about it and get it out there.

But right now, in my opinion,

they're getting away with it because they know they're really not being prosecuted, they're really not, they're getting away,

they're going to do what they get away with.

And so this gives a chance to say, well, we're taking this seriously.

You're going on people's properties,

you're opening a mailbox which is not, it's already against the law to do that. And so I would support an education campaign, but just my limited experience, these kinds of things do kind of go word of mouth through the people that do these kinds of things.

Thank you

Representative

uh

Galvin.

Thank you. If it's against the law already,

We've decided to add another layer, just in case.

Again without any more resources I'm wondering how we're going to ensure that we're going to see more enforcement of the law if that's, you know, the intent. If it's already against the law, it's against the law, and I just my argument is that I'm worried not enough people get it, that it's against the law. And, you know, that sometimes what we think of solutions,

That's part of the way I think of it is you know let's get that out there. But I appreciate where you're coming from and I know that other states to some degree have done a lot of this. Interestingly, in Texas and in Washington, the penalties for the amount and monetary amount is kind of different than what we have here. But

This is pretty open-ended and that's why I'm trying to understand if that's so open-ended then are we going to be able to get at what our goal is? And anyway, I think I really appreciate this and look forward to what it's going to do ahead. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. In the lineup I've got myself and then Representative Josephson, staff and more. And um so I just wanted to kind of maybe summarise what I'm hearing regarding

guarding discretion. And that is I think for folks watching in the public, they might be looking at this and saying wow, that seems pretty harsh, class C felony for mail theft, um you know, could be a small um you know catalogue or what not. But on the other end of the spectrum, um Ms Schroeder, I I think what you're saying is a judge could look at the circumstances, say it's an eighteen year old kid who's got no prior, you know, uh criminal record and he's stolen a catalogue.

We're just going to either reduce this or drop it, and that's the discretion that I'm – so on the one hand, you know, the legislation appears that it could be, you know, pretty harsh in its sentencing, but at the same time, there's discretion involved.

The question that I had is just what are the implications of having a Class C felony with regards to, like, for example, voting, owning firearms and so forth? What – can you speak to that?

Mr.

Chairman,

I am not up to speed on all of those implications. I do know that there is a firearms impact.

I'm not clear on the voting impact.

I would ha have to get back to you on all that. But there are collateral more collateral consequences for a felony than there are a misdemeanour, obviously. Um employers m may may treat that differently. Um but as far as the legal collateral consequences, I'd have to do some research on that, because it does cross many, many titles.

Okay, thanks. Maybe if we can get something in writing to the committee. Next up, I have Representative Josephson, then Stapp and Moore. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, Ms. Schroeder, a judge could not, if a prosecutor was persistent, the judge would not have discretion. Assuming there was an indictment and a plea or a trial, there would be in fact a C felony.

And the judge's discretion would be in the first instance in the zero to two year range. Is that right?

Is that right through the sheriff?

Through the chair to Representative Josephson, that is correct and thank you for that clarification. The prosecution brings the charges. The level of charge is something that is decided by the prosecution.

And then even in crafting a resolution between the defense and the prosecution,

the judge's only role there is to either accept the resolution or reject it.

reject the resolution. If the person proceeds and is then convicted,

the judge's discretion kicks in when we're talking about the sentence, and Representative Josephson is correct.

A follow up, follow up for the sponsor,

For the sponsor,

did anyone in the prior committee, I assume Judiciary, talk about a mitigator where the only evidence was that for example a Macy's magazine was stolen

Mm-hmm.

so that there was some gradation between, as Representative Hannon noted, theft of a gun is a C felony. That seems more serious than the Macy's magazine.

Uh uh

Rep.

to

Surf Cologne.

the chair uh to co-chair Josephson, I don't remember discussions about the gradient. There were a lot of discussions about the intent, so there were questions about well what if I ask my neighbor to grab my mail while I'm gone? There's no intent to steal there that's not in this bill, but I don't I I mean

Some of the some of the kind of skirted around it and and I think Ms. Schroeder's answered it too is that like what's the bandwidth to go after somebody who stole a magazine as opposed to someone who is stealing consistently and has credit cards and identity theft.

It's just.

My impression was that there isn't the resources there to chase these people with these smaller junk mail crimes. I mean that that was my impression. If Ms. Schroeder wants to clarify that'd be great.

Through the chair to Representative Josephson, there.

There is a mediator that could apply in that situation. The one directly on point that comes to my mind is the least serious mediator. So in the event and I I would just stress to the committee this is a rare event that the prosecution proceeds on the basis of st of one stolen magazine at the C felony level, um it is possible that the defense could argue for a least serious mediator. But I would note that if this person does not have any prior felonies

the sentencing range anyway is zero to two.

So it's possible that the defense may wanna prove up a least serious mitigator or argue that it's the least serious among the f the category of offences to try to get push the judge to sentence more towards the zero.

That's still within the presumptive range. I think that people would s probably start arguing about mitigators when the person has prior felony history and they'd be up in that those higher ranges of of offences to try to get below the presumptive range.

change.

Cool.

All right.

Or could the public defender, for instance, if they score, quote unquote,

on the least serious mitigator argue for a suspended imposition of sentence or something along those lines?

Ms. Schroeder,

through the chair to Representative Josephson, yes, they could try to do that too as well, and to be clear, they don't need to prove any mitigators to do that, but they may try to argue by analogy, especially if you are still within that first presumptive range of zero to two.

Thank you.

Okay, next up I have Representative Stapp and then Moore. Representative Stapp.

Yeah, I thank co-chair Foster and to the chair Rep Kloon. It's uh it's always fun how our finance conversations go in different directions. I mean clearly to me

This is a pretty straightforward bill that says, hey, you know, don't be a porch pirate.

Stop going to steal people's Amazon packages. Don't go steal some kids'

Christmas presents off the front of their house.

And I'm sure maybe there's some random person who goes and steals junk mail out of people's boxes intentionally.

But I would imagine,

and this is to Ms.

Schroeder,

I would imagine most of the people you deal with mail theft.

They're probably not out there stealing,

you know, my uh what is that what is that my little thing I get from uh Amway or whatever that says sign up and I could be a millionaire through the chair, right? They're stealing something materially of value.

Ms Shorter.

Ms.

Through the chair to Representative Stapp, I can't tell you exactly what they're stealing. I would say that probably from a prosecution's angle, we would pay more attention to um things that are in packages as opposed to Publisher's Clearing House.

Yeah, follow up, Mr. Co-Chair.

Follow up.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, Publisher's Clearing House, that's what I was looking for. I might win that one day though. Through the chair to Representative Maloney, the intent of the bill to make this

Yes.

like an actual punishment.

It gives the DA prosecutor more leeway, you think, when it comes to actually prosecuting that crime. And that's going to be through the chair, to Representative Klum or Ms. Casey Schroeder through the chair.

Representative

Well I

Flom.

I can comment unless you want it too as well. So through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Staff. Yeah, it's in the presentation. It's on the slide right there. It's another tool in the box,

okay?

So this is giving the state an opportunity and prosecutors an opportunity to have an additional charge.

There is a lot of flexibility in it, but I will tell you this is not requiring anything.

This is trying to strengthen our partnership with our federal partners and giving some opportunity for the state to do something. And just as a reminder,

the bill actually came from Ms. Lohman.

She actually asked me about this because she's watching seniors get their bank accounts raided, their houses stolen, their retirement benefits,

and she can't do anything.

And so this was something that I just came up with that came from her,

from experience, from 30 years of experience. And I would say, you know, as far as the penalty,

what we're doing now is not working.

This gives an opportunity to do something different.

Thanks, Co-Chair Foster.

Follow up?

Yeah, thank Co-Chair Foster through the chair to Rep. Colum.

So the other, other argument I heard a little bit ago, just to clarify it,

If I ask my neighbor to check my mail while I am gone, that is not my neighbor stealing mail.

That is my neighbor having permission to check, get my mail out of my mailbox while I am gone. So maybe Ms. Schroeder can just verify that no, we're not going to go punish people for authorized access to someone's mail? Is that correct through the chair?

Ms. Schroeder?

Through the chair to Representative Stout, that's exactly

exactly correct.

There is no crime that's been committed there. In order to commit the crime of theft, you have to have the intent to deprive another of property. And if somebody has permission to take the mail, then they don't have the intent to deprive the property, and we won't be able to meet that element of the offence.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Representative

Moore.

Thank you.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I think a lot of the points here in the last couple minutes were made that I wanted to make, but I think the most important one is that the bill is here for intent and no one is intending to go raid a bunch of mailboxes looking for junk mail.

They're looking for mail that is going to effectively bring

identity theft, credit card theft. You know, I have boxes that are delivered to my house that look the very same. One could have $25 in snacks for the kids or it can have a $4,000 Louis Vuitton purse in it. The intent is that they're taking those two boxes no matter what's in them to steal and create and commit a crime. And so I think we have a problem here. The current law is not working,

and we need to strengthen that federal law with the state statute. And 74,000 people, sorry, people in the last three months being affected by mail crime is we have a problem.

And we should not be sitting here trying to justify it with are we going to be prosecuting people stealing catalogs? That's asinine.

Can I add to respond?

Represented Colum?

Uh uh so uh through Co-Chair Foster to uh Representative Moore. So we didn't we we didn't we were trying to keep it timely uh so we didn't show a video that Ms.

Lipman uh shared in the judiciary. But there's literally a woman that has a wagon with a male piled high. So most of that is probably junk mail, but what she's doing is going through and

and grabbing all the mail and trying to look for the things that she can use for identity theft or credit card theft. And so I appreciate that.

What you say is, to me, the concern is not someone stealing catalogue. The concern is that we have a lot of seniors getting their identity stolen.

And AARP has sent a letter of support.

This is a big issue and they know it is for seniors.

And so that's what I'm trying to target,

try to protect them.

Okay, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

And just a quick comment.

You know, we hear a lot of conversation here.

And I can tell you from growing up, I always knew to mess with the mailbox was a crime.

I mean, as you just told that as a kid because you'd want to go do things to mailboxes when you're young.

men and then you know out in the woods and or out in the boonies you know you'd try to cause mischief and so you're always told don't mess with the mailbox federal crime and so that was kind of uh hit into a in our heads but the thing that uh that stands out to me is is that if unless you've never had your mail stolen and it used as a crime against you for your identity and your credit cards and your

your other things. You're probably not thinking this is a very big deal,

but I can assure you that I have.

And it consumes many hours of your life and it takes your resources and it should absolutely be a felony crime.

So I support the bill as it's written and I look forward to moving forward.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

I'd like to back up for a second before we get into more questions.

We did initially, this is our first hearing,

and we jumped right into adopting the committee substitute,

and I objected for purposes of laying out what the bill was.

But I think maybe Ms. Durfee or Representative Colombia had asked if I wanted to also address the summary of changes. And it looks like it's very short just so that folks know the difference between the original version of the bill and the new version that we adopt or we're currently adopting as a CS. Ms. Durfee if you wanted to just talk about the summary of changes and then I'll remove my objection then we can continue on with questions.

Ms. Durfee?

For the record, this is Emily Durfee. Through the chair, the summary of changes addresses issues that were identified with the Department of Law that came to our office. So section one, page two, deletes lines 12 through 19.

This removes unnecessary language in the bill that was about conduct. Because theft is already defined in statute,

we did not need this and it simplifies the bill.

Section two adds language to each of the definitions to include private mail delivery companies.

And then section three, page three,

lines 11 through 19,

these were affirmative defenses that are unnecessary with the existing definition of theft being in statute and could have potentially caused redundancy or

or legal conflict,

so this simplifies it and makes the intent truer.

Great, thank you very much. Uh so with that, just so that we've got our working document before us officially adopted um Representative Schrage made the motion earlier to adopt the C_S_ and I'm going to remove my objection to adopting the C_S_ and I don't see any further objections and that is to adopting version O_ of the bill. And so that is currently before us. And we're going to come back to questions and in the line-up I've got Representative

Jonathan of Galvin and Josephson, represent of Galvin.

Thank you. Just for some clarification, if I may. Did you say that we are now with version O?

Version O, correct.

Correct.

Okay, then I think

I think I'm tracking.

I don't see a redline version, so I just want to make sure I have that right.

I think you mentioned page 3,

and then you mentioned lines 11 through something.

So that must be something that got removed in the new

in version O because there's no line 11 through 19. So is that correct?

Through the chair,

That's perfect.

Emily Durfee, that is correct. The lines 11 through 19 were in version N of the bill.

Okay great, thank you. And Co-Chair Foster,

if I may, I do want to share another story because I think it's relevant here as we're thinking through how we're going to get to change of behavior.

And without enforcement I deeply worry about that. For me, I too have had my entire wallet stolen and guess what we figured out who it was. We were able to catch them on video at Walmart. It was within 20 minutes and I was in one location. I set my wallet on the counter because I was getting a photo taken for my passport,

come back two minutes later, it's gone.

Then I know it's a block and a half away at the Walmart.

Anyhow, I was one of those who went through the steps of reporting and it took endless hours to clear up my cards, and again when I offered that APD said go online and we had video of them, the whole works, absolutely not enough resources to take care of any of this. And that concerns me. I really think either we're trying to get the bad guy or we're not and then if you're

trying to get the bad guy, it means you need resources to do the follow-up and I just want to make sure that we're aware, at least in Anchorage, we're short 75, well now it's maybe down to 45 officers, but I just

deeply concerned I want to have this done and I don't want just to change a law that says yeah it's now a crime it's already been a crime and it the amount of theft that's happening the petty theft whether it's in our mailbox or somewhere else is absolutely insane and I just want to make sure that I put that on the record that I'm concerned about resources to get this done right

I and um and I support uh s g uh making sure we're doing something. So thank you for for putting this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next up we've got Representative Josephson.

Yes, really if I could, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment on Representative Moore's comment and that is concern

that we're asking too many questions.

This bill was heard in Judiciary four times last year, February 21st, February 24th, March 5th,

April 9th.

Why it needed all that attention, I'm not sure, although it's apparently been made better by a CS. So that's good. It received four bipartisan due passes, three GOP, one

D. So this is just the first hearing. I don't think it's going to need four hearings. We had some time. I think part of the reason there are these questions is it's a fairly simple concept and we can easily wrap our head around it. So I just wanted to offer that comment.

Representative Warren?

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Uh Co-Chair Josephson, I I I don't think that I think the questions are warranted. I think it was more so addressing the fact that we're we're trying to put

People who are breaking the law in a box where it's it's unnecessary I think when someone's breaking the law they're breaking the law the intent of it is that that's what they're doing they're not looking for catalogues they're not looking for junk mail they're looking for something of value and I don't want that point of the bill to be missed I think that intent has to be forward as we move forward. Thank you.

Great.

Great, thanks.

Chair Foster, can I respond?

Representative Fleming.

Yeah, so through um Co-Chair Foster to Co-Chair Josephson, I just wanted to give some background on why there were so many hearings. The Judiciary Chair um chose to uh do several hearings to compare my bill with two other bills. The governor had one and Zach Fields had one. And so those four hearings weren't just my bill,

but they're on basis because my bill was even either mentioned or compared to the other two bills.

That's helpful.

Thank you, Representative Hannon.

Thank you Chair Foster and I I want to clarify because uh I somehow think that it may be interpreted by members of the committee that we're making

Light by asking questions. And Ms.

Clome, you've articulated so this bill is saying if you stole my Amazon package it's a felony because it was delivered to my house. But you know having worked retail to establish a felony you had to have somebody with a big pile,

$750 worth of stuff in their hands when you stopped them for that felony. So I want to make sure, because I'm real clear.

Absolutely, if it's identity theft, that should be a felony. But when we are talking about lesser valued things,

porch pirates, packages being stolen, when we make that automatically a felony,

I foresee that we then have created a disparate of retail crimes.

being of less value and perhaps escalating that, because if I stole it off your porch and its value was fifty dollars, it's a felony. But if I walked into your store and stole it, it's a misdemeanour. And I am just I wanna make sure, and that's why I asked questions of of Miss Schroeder,

and I think I don't believe the sponsor has taken offence by those, but that's where my thinking is going. I don't wanna create

that one category of material is suddenly a felony when I think the vast majority of retail theft,

organized retail theft kind of strategized to keep it below that felony level so that it creates this ongoing shoplifting nightmare cycle. Um

And, you know, I trust that we have some prosecutor and investigatory discretion. But that's where my line of question. And so I think for members to focus on a frivolous piece of junk mail when really that's not the nexus we're looking at.

Mm-hmm.

But I I don't know if you, having worked retail and seen that level of what you would need to get to a felony prosecution for retail theft that was crippling to businesses, um any comments on that?

Representative uh Clome?

Yeah, so through co-chair Foster to Representative Hannan, I appreciate that. I I don't have any problems with the questions. I mean, especially when we're talking about crimes and fines and jail time, yet I have no problem vetting that, making sure what

sure we we have um you know don't have any uh unintended consequences but a couple of things one we worked a lot with department of law and make this a lot better bill um so we didn't have unintended consequences and to your point between the retail theft on your porch and your retail theft in a store um it is very difficult to prosecute uh store theft although it's getting better

A lot of those decisions are really made on the corporate level, whether they want security there,

you can't take them down anymore,

do you stop them at the door,

all that. But as I,

when I look at this bill, and I think I mentioned it before,

this theft is a little personal, a little more personal than going into a store. They're coming on your property,

they're going to your house,

they're opening your mailbox,

well technically I think the feds own your mailbox,

but the mailbox is on your property.

And so I think there is a higher level of problems than someone going in and stealing a bunch of makeup in a store.

It's not my private property,

it's not my receptacle, it's not a letter mailed to me.

This is going out into the general public and into a store and stealing.

So that's, you know, these discussions around the felony have been going on and I think, I mean, that's how I view it. Obviously it's up to the committee on how you feel.

How do you feel about that?

Mm-hmm.

Okay, Ms. Schroeder, so going back to this example, say somebody goes into a store and steals a purse that's valued at $100. Is that a class B misdemeanor?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Okay, and so right now if we go back to slide three which we're on right now, current problem, no specific state law for mail theft. Officers must prove the monetary value that stolen mail exceeds $750. So if somebody steals that exact same purse that's in somebody's mailbox and it's a $100 purse,

currently under laws there nothing that can be done? I mean that's kind of what I read when I see this slide or can the person still be hit with misdemeanor B? Is it Ms. Schroeder?

Mr. Chairman, that's correct.

It would still be a B misdemeanor.

Okay, thank you. Okay one last thing I'd like to do and that is Mr. Don Duncan calling in from Fairbanks. Were you here wanting to call in for public testimony? I just wanted to

Oh!

Or were you, Mr. Duncan,

were you online for any reason?

Yes, I want, that's what real life is.

I'm sorry,

Mr.

Duncan,

we can't hear you if you're on speaker,

if you could maybe go off speaker.

Okay,

Okay. Can you hear me now?

Yes, were you wanting to do public testimony? I just noticed you online.

Hardly hear you now.

I

So,

I was just asking

I'd like to testify if I can.

okay. We actually haven't noticed that, but you've been sitting here patiently online and so I'm gonna go ahead and open public testimony and let you let you speak speak give us your thoughts on on the bill and so we're currently on House Bill 77, that's a mail theft bill, so I'll go ahead and open public testimony and

And if you can state your name and your affiliation and give us your testimony.

Okay, thank you. I'll be as brief and as quick as possible.

Don Duncan,

retired guy, number 139136, retired.

I'm an ongoing victim of felony mail theft.

The thief stole my mail,

altered two checks,

forged the checks, then cashed the two checks at Western Union located in the local Walmart.

The Western Union was notified.

They charged us $15 per check to send us a photocopy of the check.

I sent those to the state troopers. The state troopers immediately investigated.

I don't know if they arrested the guy,

but they sent the charges to the district attorney.

The district attorney refused to prosecute the guy when he was caught on camera with stolen checks.

So

in my opinion, he refused a slam dunk case.

Now, that thief is back on the street. He lives down the road from me and I'm still getting mail stolen,

including my PFD check this year.

So it is a felony. The US Postal Service refused to do

Anything other than take my complaint.

They never once contacted me back.

I've been charged late fees for my utility bills because I didn't get the bill to pay it.

There should be a mandatory prosecution for mail theft.

No plea bargains.

And if you keep, if you bust a few of the mail thieves, there's not that many of them.

If you take them off the street,

you're going to have a drastic reduction in their mail theft.

In my case, my mailbox is up on the road, and there are 10 other mailboxes there.

When they steal stuff from their mailboxes, every mailbox door is open.

So I don't think the troopers in this case...

And that base did their job. The second time when they stole my PFD, they didn't even want to take a report.

They told me to call the U.S. Postal Service, and I knew how that would go.

Nothing.

So this is serious.

Maybe I've heard testimony in the past that if we spent more money on schools,

we wouldn't spend so much money on prisons.

The money is there.

The people have a job. The district attorney has a job. It slammed up.

He should have done his job.

And the schools evidently aren't doing their job because we've got thieves.

I don't know.

So thank you for taking my testimony. I hope it was some help.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr.

Duncan,

for calling in and listening and providing your testimony. So I'm going to go ahead and close public testimony on HB 77.

And just for the public who is watching, we will also set another time for public testimony on this bill.

I believe at our next meeting,

I think there is a question as to whether or not there might be a fiscal note regarding corrections. So I think folks will probably look into that.

And then I think we have the question of just what the implications were regarding felonies. And so we'll come back to the bill.

Is there any other questions for the sponsor or Ms. Schroeder regarding the bill?

reading the bill, seat reps in a bind-em.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just really quick, um with all the conversations, this is to Representative Cologne, um with all the conversations that we've had, there's been a lot of um concern about how we're characterising the theft versus retail theft and the mail theft.

When you were talking with law enforcement and other folks in developing this, was there conversation that revolved around the idea of public trust,

that our mail system revolves on the system of trust,

and that breaching that trust then is the cause for elevation of this being felony crime? Was that anything, or was that part of your conversations?

Representative Colon, yeah.

Yeah, so through Co-Chair Foster to Representative

Bynum, yes, of course.

There's a lot of issues with the trust in the mail for sure, especially the U.S. Post Office. I don't know if Ms. Loafman wants to add to this, but we discussed it when I initially talked to her about the bill, and obviously, you know, if we're still if you look at it as like the last twenty years, the changes that the mail looks like now.

What we got in the mail twenty, thirty years ago, we'd never get in the mail now. It gets sent to us electronically. We didn't use the Amazon, the packages weren't coming like it was like there's been a big change in how products are delivered. And I know that people are really wary of especially with documents, you know, having those mailed to your mailbox because of this this happening and certainly

packages to your porch but I would give an opportunity for Ms. Loafman to add to that if she

Ms.

Loafman.

would like

Yep.

Just like I testified earlier,

you know, such as the elderly population and those that are most vulnerable rely on the mail.

Probably more than some of the rest of us do on any given week,

you know, we're also mailing medications now,

the VA's office is mailing medications to elderly people and so there absolutely is that trust and like I testified before,

you know, once that trust is broken,

you know, it can really send especially elderly people kind of in a down spiral of trying to mitigate this and how to fix it and the hours.

you know just even how to fix what has happened to them so I hope that was helpful

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Ms.

Luftman.

I don't see any further questions.

Representative Colom, do you have anything for a adjourn out for the day?

No,

thank you so much for the time in committee. It's an important issue.

I'm hoping we can move this forward.

And I wanted to just clarify,

corrections did have an opportunity to give a fiscal note. They just didn't do it.

Okay.

Thank

So,

you.

okay.

Okay. Good, robust discussion.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday afternoon. That's March 30th. And at

1:30 p.m. we'll take up amendments for the operating budget. So if there's nothing else to come for the committee, we will be adjourned at 3:11 p.m. Thank you.