Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2013 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB21 | |
| SB85 | |
| SB83 | |
| SB22 | |
| SB88 | |
| SB47 | |
| SB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(FIN)
"An Act relating to the commencement of actions for
felony sex trafficking and felony human trafficking;
relating to the crime of sexual assault; relating to
the crime of unlawful contact; relating to forfeiture
for certain crimes involving prostitution; relating to
the time in which to commence certain prosecutions;
relating to release in a prosecution for stalking or a
crime involving domestic violence or for violation of
a condition of release in connection with a crime
involving domestic violence; relating to interception
of private communications for certain sex trafficking
or human trafficking offenses; relating to use of
evidence of sexual conduct concerning victims of
certain crimes; relating to consideration at
sentencing of the effect of a crime on the victim;
relating to the time to make an application for credit
for time served in a treatment program or while in
other custody; relating to suspending imposition of
sentence for sex trafficking; relating to consecutive
sentences for convictions of certain crimes involving
child pornography or indecent materials to minors;
relating to the referral of sexual felonies to a
three-judge panel; relating to the definition of
'sexual felony' for sentencing and probation for
conviction of certain crimes; relating to the
definition of 'sex offense' regarding sex offender
registration; relating to the definition of 'victim
counseling centers' for disclosure of certain
communications concerning sexual assault or domestic
violence; relating to violent crimes compensation;
relating to certain information in retention election
of judges concerning sentencing of persons convicted
of felonies; relating to remission of sentences for
certain sexual felony offenders; relating to forms for
sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence
protective orders; relating to the subpoena power of
the attorney general in cases involving the use of an
Internet service account; relating to reasonable
efforts in child-in-need-of-aid cases involving sexual
abuse or sex offender registration; relating to
mandatory reporting by athletic coaches of child abuse
or neglect; making conforming amendments; amending
Rules 16, 32.1(b)(1), and 32.2(a), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 404(a) and (b), Alaska
Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective
date."
1:54:59 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for CSSB 22(FIN), Work Draft 28-
GS1587\R (Strasbaugh, 4/10/13). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED
for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
discussed the changes in the CS. He relayed that the first
change had been made to the bill title on page 2, lines 8
through 11:
...the rights of certain victims of sexual assault to
obtain legal and equitable remedies from injuries
arising from the conduct of a perpetrator; relating to
the definition of 'sexual assault' for the purpose of
adoption and the termination of parental rights in
certain proceedings; relating to...
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that some of the changes were not
products of the House Finance Committee and included the
adoption of work done by the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. George relayed that the next change clarified which
offences were eligible for the forfeiture of property (page
7).
1:57:17 PM
Mr. George pointed to the addition of a fifth item (Section
17, subsection (a), page 10) to the list of items a victim
may request from the court prior to a presentencing report:
"letters of support submitted to the court for
consideration."
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the change resulted from
outreach to the Office of Victims' Rights.
Mr. George noted that Sections 31 and 32 had been added to
the bill (page 16) in the House Judiciary Committee. The
additions related to a savings clause that would allow a
victim of sexual assault to terminate parental rights and
pursue civil damages. The meaning of sexual assault was
further defined in Section 32. He continued on page 20 and
relayed that the word "and" had been inserted on line 30;
additionally, language had been deleted from line 31 that
read "any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to
furnish expert testimony at trial."
Representative Holmes asked for the page number.
Mr. George reiterated the information about page 20, lines
30 and 31. He read the full sentence beginning on line 27:
The material shall be considered to be made reasonably
available to the defendant or defense counsel if the
prosecuting attorney provides, at a law enforcement or
prosecution facility, ample opportunity for
inspection, viewing, and examination of the material
by the defendant and the defendant's attorney.
Mr. George elaborated that the sentence had gone on to read
(but had been deleted): "any individual the defendant may
seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial."
2:00:37 PM
AT EASE
2:01:37 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. George continued on page 21. Lines 2 through 5 had been
edited to read "If the defendant or the defendant's
attorney identifies an expert who must view the material,
the court shall make arrangements for the court or the law
enforcement agency that possesses it to send the material
directly to the expert"; the words "outside the state" had
been removed from the sentence.
2:02:49 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 28-GS1587\R was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson asked whether the use of a global
positioning device was available throughout the state or in
urban areas only.
LESLIE HOUSTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, asked Representative Wilson to repeat the
question.
Representative Wilson stated that she was uncomfortable
with the concept of using a global positioning device. She
wondered whether the devices would be used in all Alaskan
communities if Department of Corrections decided to use
them. Ms. Houston replied that the technology did exist for
use throughout Alaska.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that court
ordered treatment outside a treatment center did not count
as jail time unless a person was escorted.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL),
agreed. She detailed that in order for a person to get
credit for treatment they needed to go to a treatment
center and to be escorted by the center to any other
treatment location. She noted that some exceptions existed
such as meetings with counsel, going to court, and other.
Representative Wilson planned to research the issue over
the interim. She was concerned about smaller treatment
facilities that could not provide all services and about
the additional cost that may occur as a result of the
chaperone requirement. She wanted to avoid people choosing
to sit in jail instead of leaving for treatment. She
reiterated her plan to look into the issue further.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that DOL would be happy to work with
Representative Wilson on the issue.
Representative Gara referred to a sexual abuse case at Penn
State [Jerry Sandusky case]. He asked for verification that
if a college coach or personnel learned about sexual abuse
occurring they were legally required to report it in
Alaska.
Ms. Carpeneti answered that a person connected with a
school, a part of a school administration, or teaching
staff was legally required to report the abuse.
Representative Gara stated asked for verification that the
law included universities. Ms. Carpeneti believed so.
Representative Gara asked for confirmation that existing
Alaska law covered a Jerry Sandusky situation, assuming all
people charged were guilty. Ms. Carpeneti was not certain
that all individuals who knew about the Sandusky abuse were
paid staff of the university.
Representative Gara asked if paid university staff would be
subject to prosecution under Alaska law. Ms. Carpeneti
replied that the individuals would be mandatory reporters
under Alaska law.
Representative Gara asked for verification that it was a
crime for a mandatory reporter to not report abuse. Ms.
Carpeneti replied that it could be a crime if a person knew
about the abuse and did not report it. She added that the
state had never prosecuted a similar case. Representative
Gara asked whether the situation was covered by the law.
Ms. Carpeneti replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 1 (28-GS1587\Y.4,
Gardner/Strasbaugh, 4/4/13)(copy on file):
Page 19, line 8, following "members":
Insert ", including athletic coaches,"
Page 19, lines 19-20:
Delete";
(9) athletic coaches"
Page 19, line 22, following "team":
Insert "."
Page 19, lines 23-25
Delete all material.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara noted that the amendment was conceptual
as it had been written to the prior bill version. The bill
related to pages 19 and 20 of the legislation. Currently
the bill stipulated that paid coaches were liable as
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect that they
knew about. He provided a scenario of a person being asked
to coach their child's soccer team the night before school
started for a token amount of pay. He did not want to make
the individual under the scenario liable. Existing law made
school teachers, school administrative staff, members of
public and private schools liable. He explained that the
amendment would insert the words "including athletic
coaches" to the list on page 19, line 31. The amendment
would delete subsection (9) reading "athletic coaches" and
Section 40 that defined an athletic coach as a person who
may get a token amount of pay (e.g. $10 or $25). The
amendment contained conforming language as well.
Representative Gara explained that the intention of the
amendment was to distinguish between a school athletic
coach who ostensibly received some kind of training in
mandatory reporting and a parent who had no training. He
stated that a parent who volunteered to coach a team should
not be held to the same requirement.
2:11:03 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the definition of a school
administrative staff member.
NAOMI HARRIS, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, OFFICE OF
CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, did not have the definition of a school
administrative staff member available. She was available to
speak to mandatory reporting requirements and available
training.
Representative Gara asked for verification that currently
all mandatory reporters were in professional positions. Ms.
Harris responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered who would potentially be subject
to a felony charge under the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti
replied that teachers fell under the description of a
professional person. She elaborated that in the absence of
a definition for "administrator," the dictionary definition
could be used. She cited the definition as someone on the
staff who is paid in a school (e.g. school counselors or
other paid employees). She relayed that the mandatory
reporting requirements applied to childcare workers as
well. She noted that childcare workers did not get paid a
substantial amount of money, but they were required to
report if they suspected child abuse and neglect.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the assertion was not
about making a substantial amount of money. He noted that
the individuals [the amendment aimed to exclude] were often
uncompensated; they may receive inexpensive items such as a
ticket to a school event or lunch money.
Ms. Harris added that there was a training video available
on the OCS website that could be sent in the mail as well
through the Children's Justice Task Force.
Co-Chair Stoltze was concerned about the possibility that
the bill was overreaching in the area related to who would
be considered a mandatory reporter. He did not want to
felonize a person who did not have training and who may not
be present very willingly [as a volunteer coach or other].
He agreed with Representative Gara on the issue about the
seriousness of creating a felony possibility for a person
who was essentially a volunteer.
2:17:13 PM
Representative Wilson surmised that the term "school
administrative staff" had been included in the bill for a
reason. She was not a fan of the legislation and believed
it was overreaching. She wanted statistics showing who the
bill aimed to catch. She stated that athletic coaches fit
under the term school administrative staff. She referred to
workers who received a stipend to care for students after
school on school grounds. She wondered if the after school
workers would be subject to the mandatory reporting
requirement if the bill language was changed to "school
staff." She did not know what "school administrative staff
member" meant and was concerned about the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze redirected the conversation towards
Amendment 1.
Representative Wilson wondered why the term "athletic
coach" was needed in the legislation; she wondered who the
[mandatory reporting] provision applied to.
Ms. Harris clarified that mandatory reporters were not
expected to be experts in child abuse. She detailed that
coaches, school staff, and after school staff had unique
and close relationships with the children. She elaborated
that the staff often noticed things or children disclosed
information to them. The requirement was that if the staff
became aware of incidents of child abuse or neglect that
they were to alert OCS.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked what would happen if the individual
did not alert OCS. Ms. Harris replied that a person would
not be charged with a misdemeanor if it came to light that
they had been aware of abuse and had failed to report it.
She added that an incident had only been reported once in
the past.
Ms. Carpeneti believed the amendment would most likely make
the section in the bill unnecessary; people connected with
a school were already mandatory reporters. She referred to
a letter from Gary Matthews [executive director, Alaska
School Activities Association, Inc.], which mentioned that
hundreds of athletic coaches were not connected with
schools (copy on file); the bill would require the coaches
to be mandatory reporters. She relayed that the group of
coaches were treated differently at different schools.
There were a number of schools in Anchorage that contracted
their coaching to individuals; some schools required the
coaches to be mandatory reporters and others did not. The
association [Alaska School Activities Association, Inc.]
required people with direct supervisory authority over
children to receive training. She relayed that the training
was not onerous; it took approximately 30 minutes to watch
the training on the OCS website. A person was able to
report suspected abuse anonymously; OCS used standards to
determine whether an investigation should occur following a
report. She stated that adding paid athletic coaches was
not an onerous addition to the existing law.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that a bill on the issue ought to
easily stand alone.
2:21:47 PM
Representative Thompson spoke in support of Amendment 1. He
discussed his involvement with the youth soccer and hockey
associations in Fairbanks; every year the associations were
short on coaches and the groups had to beg parents to coach
teams. He believed the provision in the legislation would
make some coaches hesitant to get involved. He opined that
the language in the bill was overreaching.
Representative Munoz supported the amendment. She believed
the bill language was too broad with its inclusion of any
sporting programs that received municipal funding. She
stated that in Juneau the provision could include almost
all of the youth sporting programs where most coaches were
volunteers who were paid a small stipend. She worried that
as written, the provision would be a deterrent to
participation. She had heard from parents who were
concerned with the provision. She believed it was important
to include coaches associated with public or private school
programs in the school employee section, but she did not
want unintended consequences impacting participation in all
local programs.
Co-Chair Stoltze corrected his earlier statement that the
crime would be a felony. The offence was a misdemeanor with
maximum incarceration of up to one year.
Ms. Carpeneti communicated that the provision did not apply
to volunteer coaches.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted "we don't know the interpretation."
He believed in the fundamentals of choosing respect and
having responsibilities to prevent bad things from
happening. He stated that it was not possible to formulate
everything on moral behavior into a law. He stated that
there were delineations for the providers that people have
training.
2:25:00 PM
Representative Gara stated that the Jerry Sandusky
situation was currently covered by Alaska law. He wanted to
ensure that school coaches were subject to the same rule.
Currently the only people covered in schools were teachers
and school administrative staff. The amendment would ensure
that school athletic coaches were included as mandatory
reporters. He explained that the amendment would remove
subsection (9) and the definition of athletic coach was to
exclude individuals who were paid a small stipend to coach.
He stressed that if the individuals were included the bill
may as well include all people in Alaska. He expressed
discomfort at making a person who was paid $25 a mandatory
reporter. He communicated that the amendment tried to
adhere to the intent of the bill; athletic coaches in
schools would be subject to the law.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 1 (28-GS1587\Y.4, Gardner/Strasbaugh,
4/4/13) was ADOPTED.
2:28:00 PM
Representative Costello communicated that the bill had
eight indeterminate and zero fiscal notes.
Representative Holmes expressed discomfort at DOL's zero
note that did not include an explanation on the zero
impact. She felt the same way about the indeterminate
notes. She stated that crime bills invariably cost the
state a significant amount of money.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed a past crime bill package that
had many fiscal notes attached from a broad range of
departments. He discussed that the cost had been
substantial and had been included in the fiscal notes.
Ms. Carpeneti offered to respond to DOL's fiscal note. She
relayed that the fiscal note was zero because the bill only
added one new crime that prohibited a probation or parole
officer from engaging in sexual contact with a person on
probation or parole. The bill's other provisions dealt with
improving the efficiency of the administration of justice.
She believed the fiscal note was legitimately zero. She
stated that only one probation/parole officer situation had
been brought to the state's attention sense 1978.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the information would have been
helpful to have in the department's written fiscal note
analysis.
Representative Holmes remarked that two of the
indeterminate notes were from a department she would work
on the following year.
2:33:18 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered about costs to victims. He
stated that sex offenders had an average of 110 victims and
318 offenses prior to being caught. He furthered that the
offenders went undetected for an average of 16 years, which
explained why there were so many victims of each offender.
He shared that the National Institute of Justice estimated
that the average cost of caring for the victims was
$86,500. He stated that only 16 percent of the crimes were
reported. He relayed that Alaska spent approximately $45
million on sexual assault victim treatment.
Representative Holmes clarified she was not opposed to the
legislation, but that she would prefer to see numbers
included in the fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson surmised that because the bill was
about efficiencies she believed savings should occur. She
requested comment on the issue. Ms. Carpeneti replied that
her testimony related to increasing efficiencies was only
related to DOL.
2:35:46 PM
Representative Wilson wondered what problem the bill was
aimed at solving.
JOSEPH MASTERS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
(DPS), viewed the fiscal impact as zero because it did not
see additional expenses to the department. He communicated
that it was difficult for DPS to calculate potential
savings. He stated that one section dealt with adding a
second representative of the attorney general that could
assist DPS with administrative subpoenas; the absence of a
second person during critical times would cause DPS extra
work. Calculating the extra work was not difficult;
however, counting the number of times it may occur was
challenging.
Representative Wilson wondered about the possibility of
zeroing out all of the fiscal notes. She remarked that it
did not sound like any additional offenders would be caught
or incarcerated under the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that members had communicated their
concerns about the fiscal notes. He believed some of the
concerns had been answered adequately.
Representative Wilson hoped that information on an existing
problem and solution would be provided in future bill
presentations.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that it would be helpful for
departments to include an explanation on zero or
indeterminate notes in the analysis section.
Representative Costello MOVED to REPORT CSSB 22(FIN) as
amended out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to earlier testimony on the need
to correct issues related to a three-judge panel and
wondered what the bill would change. He recalled discussion
on a prior bill regarding the complexity of the issue
including false accusations. He stated that individuals
were placed in jail for significant periods of time due to
mandatory requirements.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that hopefully nothing would be
changed with the three-judge panel. One of the bill's goals
was to correct a mistaken interpretation of the intent of a
bill passed in 2006. She spoke to the intent of the prior
legislation related to the increased sentencing ranges,
which was due to harm done by people committing sex
felonies. She relayed that the past October when the court
of appeals had decided Collins v. State it had adopted a
different interpretation. The department had not found any
legislative history of intent to change standards for
referral of the cases to a three-judge panel.
Vice-Chair Neuman read from a subsection [Section 23,
subsection (f), page 12]:
...manifest injustice would result from imposition of
a sentence within the presumptive range based solely
on the claim that the defendant, either singly or in
combination, has (1) prospects for rehabilitation that
are less than extraordinary; or (2) a history free of
unprosecuted, undocumented, or undetected sexual
offences.
Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that unless the three-judge
panel believed an offender could be rehabilitated, the
offender could apply for a three-judge panel. Ms. Carpeneti
replied in the affirmative. She detailed that the
department's concern was related to the Collins v. State
decision, which addressed the law for the transfer of a
case to a three-judge panel for sentencing after conviction
based on standards that were different from other cases.
Currently a sentencing court had to find that a person had
prospects for rehabilitation that were extraordinary in
order for referral to a three-judge panel for sentencing.
The court decision had allowed the transfer of a case for
sex felons to a three-judge panel under ordinary
rehabilitation prospects, which the bill aimed to correct.
2:42:57 PM
Representative Edgmon thanked first lady Sandy Parnell for
championing the issue. He spoke in strong support of the
legislation. He remarked that many of the victims were
young Native women from rural Alaska. He referred to a
sexual trafficking committee report from the past fall and
relayed that many signs pointed towards child abuse and
childhood trauma. He encouraged legislators to not lose
sight of the importance of preventing victims from becoming
engaged in horrific situations with "Johns" [sex
traffickers or other] who were among the more despicable
members of society.
2:44:40 PM
Representative Wilson felt that the committee was being
pushed to pass the legislation. She did not want to see any
more victims, but she did not want innocent people to be
punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
She was uncomfortable about the legislation and did not
know who the bill aimed to catch and what it would do. She
stated that it was not possible to make laws to catch every
bad person. She felt that provisions in the bill were too
far reaching at an unknown cost to the state. She did not
believe the committee had been given sufficient time to
examine the bill. She stressed that she did not want to see
unintended consequences result from the legislation.
Representative Gara supported preventing domestic violence
and sexual abuse, but he did not believe a new bill was
needed annually to convey that the state apposed sexual
abuse. He discussed that legislation on the topic arose
every year and required slight adjustments to statute. He
stated that sex and human trafficking were already illegal.
He felt the bill was more positive than negative, but he
surmised that solutions to the issue were largely
budgetary. He noted that he did not object to the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze spoke in strong agreement of other
portions of the bill. He believed there was one provision
that was not as thought out, but that it was well
intentioned. He stated that the committee had a vast
concurrence on the majority of the legislation including
initiatives on sex trafficking and other. He remarked that
it was not possible to make malignant behavior illegal; a
statutory connection was required. He applauded the
administration for its efforts and first lady Sandy
Parnell's attention to the issue. He communicated that
there were positive feelings about the direction of the
bill.
2:50:07 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze commended the bill on its valuable
components.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 22(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 22(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal
note from the Court System; four previously published
indeterminate fiscal notes: FN5 (ADM), FN8 (ADM), FN10
(COR), FN12 (CRT); and four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN2 (DPS), FN7 (DHS), FN9 (LAW), and FN11
(DPS).
2:51:19 PM
AT EASE
3:03:18 PM
RECONVENED