Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/27/1996 01:38 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to registration of a motor vehicle and
suspension of a driver's license for failure to appear
in court or failure to pay a fine."
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, sponsor SB 6, testified in support of
the HCS CSSB 6 (CRA). He noted that the intent of the
legislation is to encourage individuals to pay some of the
25,000 traffic fines for moving violations that go
9
uncollected each year. He noted that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) was
designed to provide additional leverage to the Alaska Court
System in the collection of fines. It would also apply to
an individual who fails to appear in court. He maintained
that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) would be a valuable tool for use by
the courts in addressing the problems created by those who
choose to ignore the law, especially those who fail to make
court ordered appearances or to pay fines imposed by the
court. He explained that the legislation was based on laws
of other states. He observed that in the state of
Washington over 50 percent of those who receive notice of
possible sanctions clear up outstanding matters within one
week. He noted that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) allows the court to
suspend the driver's license of anyone who fails to make a
court appearance or pay a fine. The legislation provides
that an offender's permanent fund dividend could be
attached. He asserted that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) will generate
revenue, through the collection of outstanding fines and
reinstatement fees collected by the Division of Motor
Vehicles. He stressed that the legislation does not involve
parking violations.
Representative Brown observed that the accompanying fiscal
notes showed a net cost to the legislation. Senator Taylor
noted that the Department of Law's fiscal note, dated
2/23/96 was based on the assumption that requirements of the
bill could result in a jury trial and court appointed
counsel. He noted that the Department is anticipating that
the Court's ruling in Baker versus City of Fairbanks would
apply. He disagreed with the Department's assessment. He
did not feel that the $657.5 thousand dollar Court System's
fiscal note was justified.
Representative Mulder referred to a letter by the National
Motorist Association. He summarized that the letter
concludes that the legislation will raise a $15 dollar
ticket to the level of a suspended license charge. He asked
if Senator Taylor agreed with that conclusion. Senator
Taylor did not agree with their conclusion. He emphasized
that the legislation will provide motivation to pay fines.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that the fiscal notes by the
Department of Public Safety have not changed. He noted that
the Department of Law's new interpretation regarding
mandatory jury trials is the basis for increased fiscal
notes by the Alaska Court System and the Departments of Law
and Administration.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW explained that the Department's fiscal note is based on
the concern that the Court will rule that the Baker versus
City of Fairbanks ruling will apply to the legislation. The
10
Baker case ruled that a jury trial and subsequent court
appointed counsel is required due to the revocation of the
driver's license. She noted that the Department is
contesting the Court's ruling. She withdrew the Department
of Law's fiscal note (copy on file).
MIKE FORD, LEGAL COUNSEL, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES stated
that in his opinion HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) will not trigger the
requirement for a jury trial. He noted that if enough
speeding tickets are acquired a person's license is revoked
under a point system. He stressed that because a license is
lost under a point system does not give rise to the right of
a jury trial for each ticket. He observed that if a person
fails to pay a fine or appear in court that there is a
collateral affect which may result in suspension of the
license. He acknowledged that the Court could rule that the
right to a jury trial pertains, but he did not think it
would do so.
Senator Taylor referred to "use it and loose it" legislation
passed in 1995. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Baker
versus City of Fairbanks, 471 P. 2d 386 (Alaska 1970) that
the revocation of a license as a penalty stemming from a
criminal offense requires a jury trial on the underlying
offense. He noted that the Department of Law is appealing
the Court's ruling. Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the Court's
ruling is being appealed.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Department of Law has
withdrawn their fiscal note.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM stated
that the Alaska Court System would revise their fiscal note
to reflect the withdrawal of the Department of Law's fiscal
note. He explained that they would reinstate their original
fiscal note for $7.2 thousand dollars.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Department of
Administration's fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency
was also based on assumptions that a jury trial would be
required. Representative Mulder stated that it would be
consistent to revise the Department of Administration's
fiscal note to their original position.
Representative Brown referred to language on page 2, line
31. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the intent is that the
suspension for failure to appear would be terminated and
upon a finding of guilt for the underlying offense the
license be again suspended.
Mr. Ford pointed out that the provision relates to
suspension under the subsection. The provision only applies
11
if the offender was suspended for not appearing in court or
not paying the fine.
Representative Mulder questioned if Legislative Intent
should be added to indicate that the legislation is not
intended to entitle offenders to a jury trial.
Mr. Ford observed that the issue of jury trial is a matter
of constitutional interpretation. He did not think that an
expression of intent by the Legislature would affect the
Court's interpretation.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY requested that the Committee return HCS
CSSB 6 (CRA) to the version that passed the Senate. He
noted that the legislation was amended in the House
Community and Regional Affairs Committee. He provided
members with an amendment that would restore HCS CSSB 6
(CRA) to the version passed by the Senate (Attachment 1).
He explained that HCS CS 6 (CRA) deleted a section added on
the floor of the Senate limited the authority of Parking
Authorities. He noted that Anchorage is the only
municipality that currently has a parking authority. He
provided members with a memorandum, dated 2/27/96
(Attachment 2). He explained that the amendment would
require citations issued by a municipality to conform with
the requirements of AS 12.25.200. He explained that this
would require that basic information would be provided on
any citation issued. The amendment would also require that
an appeals process substantially similar to state law be
provided. He observed that Attachment 2 compares the
Anchorage Parking Authority's appeals process to state law.
He stressed that under the Anchorage Parking Authority the
fine must be paid before the appeal process is completed.
Under the state process the fine is suspended until the
appeal is completed. He added that the legislation would
limit the authority of parking authorities to hire
individuals that are not peace officers to issue citations.
Individuals that are not peace officers could only issue
fines for one half of the fine structure adopted by the
Supreme Court. Peace officers could issue fines for the
full amount. He maintained that individuals hired to issue
citations would not have the same level of training as a
peace officer. He asserted that these employees would have
a conflict of interest since their salaries are derived from
writing citations. He alleged that these employees must
meet a quota. He observed that a person's permanent fund
dividend or license could be taken based upon citations
issued by the Anchorage Parking Authority. He stressed that
procedural protections need to be in place.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if Senator Donley could cite examples
of ticketing abuse by the Authority. Senator Donley
12
stressed that he has received accounts that seem to have
inherent unfairness involved. He observed that an employee
of the Anchorage Parking Authority decides if a person's
objection is valid. He maintained that there is an inherent
conflict of interest in allowing the Anchorage Parking
Authority to establish their own appeals process.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Senator Donley
noted that a person can appeal to the Superior Court. He
pointed out that a person must pay a $100.0 hundred dollar
non-refundable fee to appeal a citation by the Anchorage
Parking Authority before the Superior Court. He added that
a $750.0 dollar bond is also required.
Senator Taylor maintained that problems with the Anchorage
Parking Authority should be taken up with the Anchorage
Assembly. He stressed that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) only involves
moving traffic violations. He spoke in support of HCS CSSB
6 (CRA).
Senator Donley suggested that the restriction on fine levels
could be removed and the other provisions maintained.
DAVE HARBOUR, ANCHORAGE PARKING ANCHORAGE (APA) testified
via the teleconference network. He maintained that APA's
appeal process is user friendly. He asserted that APA's
appeal proceedings are in compliance with the Administrative
Procedures Act and the Anchorage Municipal Code. He
observed that APA operates a toll free phone number to
answer questions about citations and appeals and that
appeals can be deliver by fax or mail. He stressed that on
request hearing officers provide hearing opportunities after
hours and on weekends. He asserted that no fee of any kind
is charged for an appeal. He noted that the deadline for
filing an appeal was increased from 7 to 30 days. No
payment penalty is assessed until 30 days after the issuance
of a written decision from the hearing officer. He noted
that APA supports requests for waivers of Superior Court
bond requirements. He stressed that HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) will
not effect APA's authority.
Mr. Harbour referred to Attachment 2. He maintained that
the appeal process meets all the tests imposed by the State
or municipality. He maintained that APA has responded to
requirements pertaining to information contained on the
citations issued by APA. He stressed that "if a ticket is a
bad ticket it should not be issued by anybody." He
maintained that APA tickets are not inferior just because
employees wear a different uniform. He stressed that
traffic offenses are not parking offenses. He stated that
quotas are not given to APA officers. He maintained that
APA officers do not receive bonuses based on tickets issued.
13
He noted that the Port of Anchorage, Anchorage Telephone
Utility, Municipality of Anchorage's security office, State
Troopers, Anchorage Police Department and the Anchorage
International Security Office have employees trained and
certified by APA to issue tickets.
Mr. Harbour objected to language contained in Attachment 2.
He maintained that APA would be subject to a legal challenge
if it abused its authority.
Representative Brown questioned if APA has the authority to
forward fines to a collection agency while citations are on
appeal in Superior Court. Mr. Harbour stated that APA does
not recommend that citations be paid while on appeal. He
maintained that fines are suspended during appeal. He
agreed that APA has the municipal authority to refer fines
to collection agencies. He stated that he has no knowledge
of any case in which payment was not suspended during
appeal. He stated that if a citation is not appealed within
30 days the individual's right to appeal is forfeited.
After 30 days the individual is given notice that they have
another 30 days to pay the fine with an additional $15.00
dollar penalty. If the fine and penalty are not paid the
offender is given a notice that non-payment will result in
the fine's referral to a collection agency.
Senator Donley clarified that the information contained in
Attachment 2 was given to his staff by an employee of the
Anchorage Parking Authority.
TIM ROGERS, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATOR, MUNICIPALITY OF
ANCHORAGE, BOARD MEMBER, ANCHORAGE PARKING AUTHORITY
testified via the teleconference network. He spoke against
the amendment prepared by Senator Donley. He stated that
the amendment may infringe on municipal jurisdiction. He
maintained that the requirement to employ peace officers to
issue non-moving violations would place a financial burden
on the municipality or result in a lack of enforcement of
parking ordinances.
BOB ALLEN, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke in support of the amendment prepared by
Senator Donley. He noted that the Anchorage Ombudsman
issued a report that APA's appeal process was unfair. He
acknowledged that the procedure in question was changed, but
maintained that APA changed their procedures grudgingly. He
alleged that APA's hearing procedure would not stand the
test of law. He criticized APA's hearing procedure.
JAY DULANEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY clarified that the state fine
for an unregistered vehicle is $50.0 dollars. Senator
14
Donley noted that the fine schedule is set by the State
Supreme Court. The amendment would limit APA to one half of
the fine schedule.
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF DRIVER'S SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY explained that municipalities are allowed to
set their own bail for mail in forfeitures. If a
Municipality of Anchorage peace office writes a citation for
failure to have a front license plate the municipal fine is
$75 dollars. If a state trooper or APA official write the
same citation it is a $50 dollar fine.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-53, Side 2)
Representative Mulder acknowledged that problems exist
within the Anchorage Parking Authority. He suggested that
problems with APA be addressed through other legislation.
Representative Kohring agreed that issues surrounding APA
should be addressed in separate legislation.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes from the Department of Public
Safety, Department of Corrections and Alaska Court System's
revised fiscal note of $7.2 thousand dollars. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 6 (CRA) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with four fiscal impact notes; two
by the Department of Public Safety; one by the Alaska Court
System; and one by the Department of Corrections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|