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