Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to a permanent fund dividend for an
individual whose conviction has been vacated,
reversed, or dismissed; and relating to the
calculation of the value of the permanent fund
dividend by including payment to individuals eligible
for a permanent fund dividend because of a conviction
that has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed."
2:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, did not have
additional information to add related to the bill.
2:11:43 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
LS0480\A.4 (Martin, 4/7/17) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "120 days"
Insert "one year"
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "120 days"
Insert "one year"
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment that would
delete "120 days" and replace it with one year.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the bipartisan work on
the amendment.
Representative Grenn asked to sign on as a co-sponsor to
the amendment.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:13:48 PM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-
LS0480\A.5 (Martin, 4/12/17) (copy on file) [Note: due to
length of amendment it is not included here. See copy on
file].
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment. He explained
the amendment had been brought forward by a victim.
Representative Ortiz asked for clarification about the
intent of the amendment. He wondered if it would offer an
option for repayment during the timeframe.
Representative Pruitt stated it was an option available to
the courts. He explained the person in the scenario he
outlined had been living freely.
Representative Grenn asked where the repayment funds would
go.
Representative Pruitt replied that he had contemplated
putting the money in the victim's funds. He was open to
putting the money wherever. The goal was to recognize
victims. He was amenable to having the money go to the
victim fund.
Representative Guttenberg was in support of making
restitution for someone convicted of a felony. He stated
that a conviction did not make a person ineligible for the
dividend. He believed there were many questions pertaining
to the issue. He did not know what the legal aspect would
be. He did not support the amendment.
2:20:27 PM
Representative Pruitt answered there were certain
situations where a person was made eligible. He explained
the only reason a person was not ineligible was most likely
because they had not been caught.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were individuals available for
questions.
Representative Kawasaki had some concerns about the
amendment. He stated the amendment could probably be added
to a separate bill. He did not support it at present.
2:25:01 PM
SARAH RACE, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, provided detail on current statute
related to eligibility for individuals. Prior to payment
the Department of Corrections (DOC) provided a list of
individuals who should be ineligible for the dividend. She
spoke to how to move forward with the collections of the
funds.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jennifer Johnston
in the audience.
Co-Chair Seaton saw the amendment as unrelated to the
current bill. He wondered if the maker of the amendment had
received a Legislative Legal Services memo regarding the
issue.
Representative Pruitt replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Seaton wondered about a fiscal note related to the
amendment. He provided a scenario that could cost money. He
wondered what would be the effect if the individual did not
have any money. He wondered about past circumstances.
Representative Pruitt stated the question was good and he
could not fully answer it.
2:29:45 PM
Representative Wilson stated the amendment would not go
backwards. She reasoned the court would not have imposed a
conviction. She offered a conceptual Amendment 1 related to
victims compensation fund.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson stated that the goal was to help
victims.
Vice-Chair Gara understood the intent, but he did not think
there was an easy way to do it. If it were up to him he
would send the money directly to the victim. Instead he
thought they were building a bureaucracy around the issue
that would require multiple steps. He observed they did not
know the cost or if the compensation fund would give the
money to the victim
2:33:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked queried the order of
victim's compensation versus repaying the defendant.
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, deferred the question to DOR.
Ms. Race asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Guttenberg asked who would be paid back
first - the victim or the fund.
Ms. Race answered it would go back into funds available for
carrying forward the next year's dividend calculation.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that the money would go
to the victim's compensation fund. He asked who would be
paid back first.
Ms. Race replied that typically when the division did a
collection of funds that had been paid out. There was not a
priority order established. She thought another structure
may need to be put into place.
Ms. Schroeder stated her understanding of the question. She
stated that unfortunately the answer was not known . She
explained that restitution was what the defendant owed - it
would have to be sorted out. The court system was taking
over collections of restitution.
Representative Pruitt returned to a previous conversation.
He underscored that the amendment included "may" and left
the concept in the court's hands. He agreed with the
amendment to the amendment.
2:39:11 PM
Representative Wilson provided wrap up on the conceptual
amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Ortiz wondered whether the argument was
based on similar crimes that may not have been tried.
Representative Pruitt explained the intent was related to
individuals who had eluded the state for several years.
2:43:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood the intent of the amendment. He
stated a court would not do that - the standards had to be
in the provision. The court would have no standard to
follow. It was not possible to assume the court would act
like the finance committee. He thought in concept the
amendment made sense, but that it should be written in an
enforceable way.
Representative Guttenberg agreed. He thought the concept
was interesting, but he believed there were numerous
questions that needed to be answered. He provided a
scenario and asked how far back they could go.
Ms. Schroeder answered that it was for crimes committed on
or after the effective date.
2:46:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed to page 3, Section 4 of
the amendment that would add a new section to the dividend
application. He asked about the complexity of the
provision.
Ms. Race believed it would be merely a disclaimer
statement. There were several different bullets where a
person had to certify everything they wrote was accurate
and true.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
introduced herself.
Vice-Chair Gara would prefer to see the money go to
restitution. He asked if the money were to go to the
Victims Compensation Fund would it reduce the amount
available for restitution. Second, the amendment language
stated "the court may order" but did not specify whether
the individual had money.
Ms. Meade answered the money would be due from the
defendant.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified there had been an amendment to
put the money into the Victims Compensation Fund.
Ms. Meade replied that there the fund would be appropriated
from that fund. She stated that the money collected from
the defended, and there would be more money available.
2:51:32 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wondered whether the amendment would limit
restitution to the victim.
Ms. Meade replied that the money in the Permanent Dividend
Fund was not being used for restitution. The court's role
would be to act as a funnel between the debtor and the
creditor in the scenario. By adding money into the dividend
fund there would be more money available.
Vice-Chair Gara asked wondered whether the court received
the money.
Ms. Meade did not believe the court would be collecting or
receiving any of the money. Currently fines were not
collected by the court.
2:53:42 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not understand the answer. He explained
the standard was not included. He asked if the court would
only go after people with money.
Ms. Meade clarified that the court did not go after anyone;
it imposed fines. The court could impose a maximum fine set
out in statute. The court did not ensure the person paid
the fine. If the court were to order a person to repay
their PFD it would not go after the person for payment. The
PFD Division would have to pursue the issue.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to page 1, line 9 of the amendment
related to a defendant convicted of an offence. However on
page 2, a person had been convicted of a misdemeanor. He
asked if the amendment could be imposed on a person who had
been convicted for a misdemeanor.
Ms. Meade believed Co-Chair Seaton was correct.
2:57:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton was trying to figure out how it could be
distinguished from a person working for the state who
received wages.
Ms. Meade replied that she believed if someone committed a
crime in 2012, must pay back to the PFD office the total
amount of the 2014 through 2015 dividend. She did not know
if the court would have enough information about a person's
finances.
2:59:25 PM
Representative Grenn asked about the PFD eligibility
process. He thought the bill would only deal with a few
people per year. He thought the amendment could pertain to
numerous people. He asked what number of individuals who
applied for a PFD were deemed ineligible.
Ms. Race answered it was roughly between 1,000 and 2,000
individuals.
Representative Grenn asked for verification of the 1,500
reports.
Ms. Race explained the current process.
3:01:45 PM
Representative Grenn asked for verification it dealt with
the current year.
Ms. Race answered in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn queried the communication efforts.
Ms. Race responded that the division would have to be in
direct communication with the courts. She highlighted the
several different aspects a person would need to meet
including paying back a given number of dividends.
Representative Grenn asked about the administrative load.
Ms. Race answered it depended on the communication. She
stressed without the information they would not know how to
proceed with the collections in general.
Representative Wilson remarked that it was simply the
courts would make the determination and would pass along
the information to the PFD Division. She characterized the
items as tools in the toolbox for the court to use. She
thought the amendment worked well with the bill before the
committee. She remarked that sometimes court cases lasted
several years. She believed the amendment sent a strong
message that people would not be able to gain from what
they did. She would have been opposed to the amendment if
it included "shall" she thought it sent a strong message.
She wanted to get as much back to victims as possible.
3:06:39 PM
Ms. Meade responded further to an earlier question by Vice-
Chair Gara. She thought the concern he may be expressing
was that defendants had limited means and if the money was
owed there was that much less money available for other
things. It would be an additional monetary obligation,
which may be less money available for restitution.
Representative Guttenberg thought the concept was
interesting. He did not think people committing a crime
thought about the issue - they were not thinking
rationally. He spoke to the misdemeanor component and asked
about a low level crime a person could be convicted of
where they would have to give the money back.
3:09:12 PM
Ms. Meade answered in the affirmative - a person would
become ineligible for a third misdemeanor including three
instances of shoplifting.
Representative Kawasaki MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to
Amendment 2 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 2 as amended FAILED (4/7).
3:10:35 PM
Representative Thompson provided a hypothetical scenario
related to Permanent Fund checks.
Ms. Race did not believe she could answer the question.
Representative Thompson spoke to his concern about
garnishment.
Ms. Race responded replied that it did not necessarily
carry the same garnishment from year-to-year.
Representative Thompson asked if a person were to have
their conviction reversed whether they would have to
collect their money.
3:15:36 PM
Ms. Race answered that it was a question, but was not the
current process.
Representative Thompson asked if the person would have to
reapply to be eligible.
Ms. Race answered there would have to be some sort of
process like the one he mentioned.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue. The funds would come out of the
Dividend fund and.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 127(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 127 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
3:17:50 PM
AT EASE
3:22:58 PM
RECONVENED