Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/03/2013 01:30 PM FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:45:28 PM Start
01:45:33 PM SB22
03:04:27 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Scheduled But Not Heard
<Pending Referral>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                       April 3, 2013                                                                                            
                         1:45 p.m.                                                                                              
1:45:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting                                                                     
to order at 1:45 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Mia Costello                                                                                                     
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Lindsey Holmes                                                                                                   
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate                                                                                        
Representative Cathy Munoz                                                                                                      
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Anne Carpeneti,  Assistant Attorney General,  Legal Services                                                                    
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division,  Department of Law; Nancy                                                                    
Meade,   General  Counsel,   Alaska  Court   System;  Leslie                                                                    
Houston, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections                                                                         
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Tracy Wallenberg, Deputy Director, Public Defender's                                                                            
Agency, Anchorage; Laure Morton, Council on Domestic                                                                            
Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau                                                                                             
CSSB  22 CRIMES; VICTIMS; CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT                                                                               
          CSSB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                           
          further consideration.                                                                                                
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                                                                    
1:45:33 PM                                                                                                                    
ANNE CARPENETI,  ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,  LEGAL SERVICES                                                                    
SECTION-JUNEAU,  CRIMINAL   DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT   OF  LAW,                                                                    
stated  Section 41  was an  amendment to  evidence rule  404                                                                    
(b)(2).  She   explained  that  under  the   evidence  rule,                                                                    
evidence  of   the  defendants  prior  bad   acts  were  not                                                                    
generally admissible  in the prosecution of  the individual;                                                                    
however, some  exceptions were  set out  in court  rule. She                                                                    
shared that the  three exceptions dealt with  prior bad acts                                                                    
of sexual  or physical abuse  of a child,  domestic violence                                                                    
crimes and  sexual assault offences. She  relayed that prior                                                                    
acts of sexual  or physical abuse of a child  had a ten-year                                                                    
look back limit on use of  prior bad act evidence; the other                                                                    
two did not. She said the  reasoning was that in those cases                                                                    
the perpetrator  could be  in jail for  those 10  years, and                                                                    
not in a  position to reoffend. She stated that  by the time                                                                    
they were  released, the department  would be unable  to use                                                                    
the  evidence for  prosecution. She  reminded the  committee                                                                    
that  in  every  case  the  evidence  would  be  subject  to                                                                    
weighing by the judge  to determine relevance. She concluded                                                                    
that the section would omit the mandatory 10 year limit.                                                                        
1:48:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Stoltze   requested   an   explanation   of   the                                                                    
contingency language in Section 42.                                                                                             
Ms. Carpeneti stated that Section  42 noted that the changes                                                                    
in  the rape  shield  provision in  AS 124.504(5)(a),  which                                                                    
provided  a witness  in an  abuse case  protection of  their                                                                    
sexual  conduct before  or after  the  alleged offense.  The                                                                    
change would  require a two-thirds vote  by the legislature.                                                                    
Additionally, Section 44 noted  the required two-thirds vote                                                                    
on the  statute, which indirectly  affected the  court rule,                                                                    
to take effect.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze probed the conditional affect.                                                                                 
1:50:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti  stated that  the language  had been  added by                                                                    
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), and  that she had not seen                                                                    
it before.  She thought that  the language made  the further                                                                    
notation that the  statute would not go  into effect without                                                                    
the  two-thirds  vote by  the  legislature.  She noted  that                                                                    
adding such language was not the custom for LAA.                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze asked  Ms. Carpeneti to report  back to the                                                                    
committee as to why LAA had added the language.                                                                                 
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, relayed                                                                    
that  the court  took no  issue with  the direct  court rule                                                                    
changes  or the  indirect  court rule  amendments. She  said                                                                    
that the  changes would be  implemented should  they receive                                                                    
the required majority vote of the legislature.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  asked how the  court system  would proceed                                                                    
if a problem was found with the changes.                                                                                        
Ms.  Meade replied  that the  court  system did  not make  a                                                                    
practice of taking a position on legislation.                                                                                   
1:53:12 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   queried   the  impetus   for   the                                                                    
Ms. Meade  stated that the  bill expanded the  definition of                                                                    
sexual  assault   crimes  and   would  extend   statutes  of                                                                    
1:54:54 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti  added that the  bill did not  add substantive                                                                    
criminal laws  to statute, except the  prohibition of parole                                                                    
officers and  probation officers  having sex with  people on                                                                    
parole  or  probation. She  furthered  that  the bill  dealt                                                                    
primarily with  procedure and how  the courts  would proceed                                                                    
with criminal prosecutions.                                                                                                     
Representative  Wilson  thought  that  putting a  GPS  on  a                                                                    
person  would  be  a  substantial change  to  the  law.  She                                                                    
wondered  why  the  statute  of  limitations  needed  to  be                                                                    
changed. She  hoped that  there were  statistics to  back up                                                                    
the concerns addressed in the legislation.                                                                                      
1:56:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  expressed   deep  concern  with  the                                                                    
Ms.  Carpeneti discussed  the GPS  aspect of  the bill.  She                                                                    
offered that  a judge  would examine several  variables when                                                                    
addressing a person  that had been charged  with slaking, or                                                                    
a  crime involving  domestic violence;  such as,  the danger                                                                    
that the person  presented to the victim or  their family or                                                                    
the  possibility that  the  accused would  not  show up  for                                                                    
hearings.  She  contended  that the  GPS  monitoring  device                                                                    
would allow  the person the  freedom from  confinement while                                                                    
awaiting trial.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the  GPS could be considered as                                                                    
adding latitude for the defendant.                                                                                              
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that,  under  the circumstances,  it                                                                    
would be less expensive that holding a person in jail.                                                                          
Co-Chair  Stoltze  understood  that  it was  not  an  option                                                                    
already retained by the court.                                                                                                  
Ms. Carpeneti touched on  the constitutional implications of                                                                    
the GPS. She  explained that if a person was  charged with a                                                                    
crime, and the  judge was not convinced  that the conditions                                                                    
of  release  would keep  the  community  safe, or  that  the                                                                    
person would show up for  hearings, the person would be held                                                                    
in jail.                                                                                                                        
1:58:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wilson asked  if  the  same procedure  would                                                                    
apply for other types of crimes.                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti replied no.                                                                                                       
Representative Wilson  suggested that  other crimes  were as                                                                    
severe as  sexual assault and domestic  violence. She stated                                                                    
that she was unwilling to give up her discretion easily.                                                                        
Representative  Gara asked  if the  GPS could  be used  as a                                                                    
condition  of  probation and  whether  the  GPS would  apply                                                                    
exclusively to sex trafficking or  to all level of sex abuse                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti replied  that the bill would allow  for GPS in                                                                    
cases  charging   crimes  involving  domestic   violence  in                                                                    
addition to assault.  She believed that in  some cases ankle                                                                    
monitoring  was   used  during  probationary   periods.  She                                                                    
referred further  details to  the Department  of Corrections                                                                    
(DOC). She  noted that the bill  did not address the  use of                                                                    
ankle monitoring during probation.                                                                                              
Representative Gara  understood that  the GPS could  be used                                                                    
on convicted rapists.                                                                                                           
Ms. Carpeneti  replied that under  the bill,  GPS monitoring                                                                    
could  be  used  provided  that  the rape  was  a  crime  of                                                                    
domestic violence.                                                                                                              
Representative Gara asked  why the crime would  have to fall                                                                    
under the umbrella of domestic violence.                                                                                        
Ms.  Carpeneti  stated  that the  fear  of  the  perpetrator                                                                    
knowing where a  victim lived was not as  immediate in cases                                                                    
of  sexual assault  by a  stranger. She  added that  because                                                                    
domestic  violence  and  stalking cases  often  resulted  in                                                                    
confrontations after the  fact that put the  victim at risk,                                                                    
those  were the  cases to  begin the  practice of  using the                                                                    
relatively new GPS system.                                                                                                      
2:01:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  asked why it  would not apply  in first                                                                    
degree rape  cases. He contested  that in  small communities                                                                    
attackers could locate their victims  easily. He wondered if                                                                    
first degree rape could be added to the bill.                                                                                   
2:02:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti  stated that the legislation  had been drafted                                                                    
considering all  opinions. She stated that  the drafters had                                                                    
not wanted to cast too wide a net.                                                                                              
Representative  Gara asked  if the  department would  have a                                                                    
problem with first degree raped being added to the bill.                                                                        
Ms.  Carpeneti  believed that  it  could  be discussed.  She                                                                    
added that  the bill would  require DOC to  adopt guidelines                                                                    
for  working with  the Department  of  Public Safety  (DPS),                                                                    
which  lead  her  to  believe that  the  addition  could  be                                                                    
considered once guidelines were adopted.                                                                                        
Co-Chair Stoltze  suggested that  the idea could  be further                                                                    
vetted and that  a committee substitute could  be brought to                                                                    
the table.                                                                                                                      
2:04:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  expressed concern that prior  bad acts,                                                                    
that  were  unrelated to  the  immediate  case being  tried,                                                                    
could be allowed into evidence.                                                                                                 
Ms.  Carpeneti stated  that the  evidentiary rule  exception                                                                    
only applied to sexual or physical  abuse of a minor and not                                                                    
to sex trafficking. She relayed  that the issues were always                                                                    
subject  to judicial  weighing. If  the trial  was 20  years                                                                    
after  the first  offence,  then that  would  be taken  into                                                                    
consideration by the presiding  judge. She stressed that the                                                                    
bill would allow a judge  the ability to weigh evidence over                                                                    
10 years old.                                                                                                                   
2:06:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  understood the  courts would  weigh the                                                                    
evidence  to   determine  whether  it  was   prohibitive  or                                                                    
prejudicial and  that the legislation would  not change that                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti  replied that the  weigh in process  would not                                                                    
change under the bill.                                                                                                          
Representative    Holmes   asked    if   there    were   any                                                                    
constitutional  concerns surrounding  requiring the  GPS for                                                                    
people who had been charged,  and then were released on bail                                                                    
awaiting trial.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the  person could be kept in jail,                                                                    
but the GPS would be less burdensome for all involved.                                                                          
2:09:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Munoz  thought that the language  on Page 19,                                                                    
line  22,   which  spoke  to   athletic  coaches   and  paid                                                                    
assistants reporting responsibilities, should be clarified.                                                                     
Co-Chair Stoltze  requested an  amendment that spoke  to the                                                                    
Representative  Munoz  referred to  Page  19,  line 17.  She                                                                    
queried the definition of the "Fatality Review Team."                                                                           
2:11:31 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.   Carpeneti  replied   that  he   Child  Fatality   Team                                                                    
investigated the  cause of  death of  a child  under certain                                                                    
Representative  Munoz  noted  that   the  vagueness  of  the                                                                    
language on  Section 21,  page 11, line  28. She  hoped that                                                                    
the language could be made clearer.                                                                                             
2:12:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that the  language in  the bill  had                                                                    
been written in  response to a court decision  that used the                                                                    
same language.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  noted that this  section contained  one of                                                                    
the more important provisions in the bill.                                                                                      
Ms.   Carpeneti  agreed   to   be   in  communication   with                                                                    
Representative  Munoz   concerning  the  language   and  its                                                                    
2:13:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Neuman  requested  a  copy  of  the  legislative                                                                    
findings  and intent  referred  to Section  1.  He asked  if                                                                    
there had  been a change  in the requirements  for mandatory                                                                    
sexual offender registration.                                                                                                   
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the  bill would add a provision to                                                                    
the sexual  offender registry and  would clarify one  of the                                                                    
provisions  in the  sex offender  registry requirement.  She                                                                    
referred  to  Page  13,  line  9,  which  was  a  conforming                                                                    
amendment that  dealt with  the sex-trafficking  of children                                                                    
under the  age of 20.  She furthered that a  requirement the                                                                    
people over the age of 18,  or 3 years older than the child,                                                                    
who patronized a child prostitute,  would be prosecuted as a                                                                    
Class  C  felony  and  would  have  to  register  as  a  sex                                                                    
2:16:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Carpeneti  recalled a  court  decision  had found  that                                                                    
people convicted  before 1994  did not  have to  register as                                                                    
sex  offenders.  She  stated that  she  could  provide  more                                                                    
information concerning the matter at a later date.                                                                              
Vice-Chair Neuman  hoped to see  language that  required all                                                                    
felony sexual offenders in the state to register.                                                                               
2:16:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki wondered how  frequently a GPS would                                                                    
be used in lieu of actual jail time.                                                                                            
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she  would need to research the                                                                    
question and would provide an answer at a later date.                                                                           
Representative   Kawasaki  understood   that  the   GPS  was                                                                    
intended to provide  the extra level of  safety for victims,                                                                    
but asserted that the most  effective way to protect victims                                                                    
would be to keep perpetrators in jail.                                                                                          
Representative  Kawasaki  asked   about  Section  15,  which                                                                    
discussed  authorization  to  intercept  communications.  He                                                                    
requested  discussion  and  justification for  allowing  the                                                                    
interception  of  communications  for  sex  trafficking  and                                                                    
human trafficking cases.                                                                                                        
Ms.  Carpeneti  replied  that the  Attorney  General,  or  a                                                                    
designee for  the Attorney General,  could apply to  a judge                                                                    
for wiretapping  permission. She  furthered that it  must be                                                                    
limited to  time and  parties, and was  not used  very often                                                                    
due  to the  labor intensive  nature of  the procedure.  She                                                                    
said   that  the   rationale  for   adding  sex   and  human                                                                    
trafficking to authorized list was  because they were crimes                                                                    
that would  most likely involve communication  among parties                                                                    
perpetrating the offense.  She contended that it  would be a                                                                    
good way for law enforcement to obtain useful evidence.                                                                         
2:20:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki wondered  whether the bill broadened                                                                    
the authority of the Attorney General.                                                                                          
Ms. Carpeneti  responded that the authority  already existed                                                                    
and  that the  procedure  was among  the regular  procedures                                                                    
already practiced.                                                                                                              
Representative Kawasaki  stated that  imminent danger  was a                                                                    
reasonable  excuse for  the  interception of  communication,                                                                    
but   he   requested    further   justification   from   law                                                                    
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  if the  defense  could request  the                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti stated yes.                                                                                                       
2:22:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson  noted  Section   10,  page  6.  He                                                                    
thought that  the forfeiture of  property for  a misdemeanor                                                                    
crime was too extreme.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair  Stoltze  asked  whether   there  was  currently  a                                                                    
statute  allowing municipalities  to  seize  property for  a                                                                    
misdemeanor offense.                                                                                                            
Ms. Carpeneti believed so. She  added that the state did not                                                                    
seize  property for  a misdemeanor  offense very  often. She                                                                    
asserted  that the  policy  call should  be  decided by  the                                                                    
legislature. She  shared that  originally, the  bill allowed                                                                    
the  possibility  of  forfeiture   for  the  patron  of  the                                                                    
prostitute, as the governor was  most interested in focusing                                                                    
on  the   demand  side   of  prostitution   prevention.  She                                                                    
furthered  that   the  section   in  current   law  required                                                                    
mandatory forfeiture  and did not require  a conviction. The                                                                    
changes  to  the  bill in  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee                                                                    
resulted in  the forfeiture applying  to the patron  and the                                                                    
prostitute, but only after a conviction.                                                                                        
Representative Costello  queried areas  where the  state sex                                                                    
offender  registry  was  out   of  compliance  with  federal                                                                    
requirements,    specifically   school    information.   She                                                                    
understood   that  the   state   did   not  require   school                                                                    
information  as an  element subject  to public  information.                                                                    
She expressed concern that high  school students working for                                                                    
credit in  college classes could  be unknowingly  exposed to                                                                    
an offender.  She asked if  there was anything  currently in                                                                    
statute, or the bill, that addressed the issue.                                                                                 
Ms. Carpeneti  replied that the  issue was not  addressed in                                                                    
the  legislation. She  said that  under current  Alaska law,                                                                    
juveniles were not required to  register. She explained that                                                                    
children  that were  convicted  of a  sex  offense in  adult                                                                    
court would be required to register.                                                                                            
2:26:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Costello clarified  that  she was  inquiring                                                                    
about  adult  registered  offenders   who  might  enroll  in                                                                    
college  classes.   She  expressed  concern  that   a  minor                                                                    
enrolled  in   college  classes   could  be  exposed   to  a                                                                    
registered  sex   offender.  She  noted  that   federal  law                                                                    
required  that  the registry  include  any  school that  the                                                                    
offender might be enrolled.                                                                                                     
Ms. Carpeneti  replied that  the bill did  not speak  to the                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.                                                                                       
2:27:45 PM                                                                                                                    
TRACY   WALLENBERG,  DEPUTY   DIRECTOR,  PUBLIC   DEFENDER'S                                                                    
AGENCY,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference),  spoke to  Section                                                                    
38,  which   amended  the   criminal  rules   regarding  the                                                                    
regulation  of  discovering  child  pornography  cases.  She                                                                    
stated that  the provision would only  permit legal material                                                                    
to be sent to an expert  for analysis if the expert was out-                                                                    
of-state. She  furthered that  in-state experts  retained by                                                                    
the defense  would be required to  transport their equipment                                                                    
to  a  law enforcement  or  prosecution  facility where  the                                                                    
information would  be made available. She  expressed concern                                                                    
that  the  provision would  make  using  an in-state  expert                                                                    
either cost prohibitive or impractical  for some experts due                                                                    
to the  time it would take  them to set up  their equipment.                                                                    
She added  that this  would have the  unintended consequence                                                                    
of  increasing the  distribution  of  materials, because  it                                                                    
would have to be sent  to an out-of-state expert, or subject                                                                    
the  rule  Change  to  a  constitutional  challenge  as  the                                                                    
defense would not  have access to local expert  who could be                                                                    
more  qualified.   She  said  that  putting the  inside  and                                                                    
outside experts  on equal footing  would promote  the intent                                                                    
of the  rule change,  which was to  curb the  duplication of                                                                    
the discovery materials.  She stated that a  change had been                                                                    
made  in  the  companion  bill, HB  23,  to  permit  sending                                                                    
information to an in-state expert.                                                                                              
2:32:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Holmes  stated that  an amendment  on members                                                                    
desks would  delete the words  "outside the state"  from the                                                                    
legislation. She  asked if there  was further  language that                                                                    
the testifier wanted deleted.                                                                                                   
Ms. Wallenberg  hoped for clarification  to the  change made                                                                    
on  Line  12 of  the  section  that  the court  could  order                                                                    
information to be  sent to an expert in  or out-of-state and                                                                    
that it would not be sufficient  for it to be made available                                                                    
at only a prosecution facility.                                                                                                 
2:33:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
2:35:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara queried  a provision  in the  bill that                                                                    
would  negate  "good  time"  for  high-level  offenders.  He                                                                    
understood that  "good time" was  granted to  prisoners that                                                                    
the  department  determined  had become  non-threatening  to                                                                    
society. He  asked how  "good time"  was determined  and how                                                                    
the department  stood on withholding  it from  the offenders                                                                    
described in the bill.                                                                                                          
LESLIE   HOUSTON,   DEPUTY   COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT   OF                                                                    
CORRECTIONS, replied  that she  could not explain  how "good                                                                    
time"  was  applied  or  taken   away.  She  said  that  the                                                                    
department could  speak to  the issue at  a later  date. She                                                                    
added that  the department was  neutral on the  provision in                                                                    
the bill that would remove the "good time."                                                                                     
Representative Gara maintained his inquiry.                                                                                     
Ms. Houston shared that  Ronald Taylor, Deputy Commissioner,                                                                    
Department  of  Corrections  could  be  made  available  for                                                                    
questions at the next hearing of the bill.                                                                                      
Co-Chair   Stoltze   expressed   disappointment   that   the                                                                    
department was not prepared with an answer.                                                                                     
2:38:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  raised the issue  of time spent  in a                                                                    
treatment center.                                                                                                               
Ms.   Houston  stated   that  DOL   could  provide   further                                                                    
information on the subject.                                                                                                     
2:39:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki   asked  about   the  indeterminate                                                                    
fiscal note. He  hoped that there could be  a rough estimate                                                                    
given of the  number of prisoners who might  not be released                                                                    
due to "good time" ineligibility.                                                                                               
Representative  Kawasaki questioned  the GPS  guidelines. He                                                                    
noted that  there were two  sections of the bill  that spoke                                                                    
to guidelines for  monitoring that would be  adopted by DOC,                                                                    
in consultation with the Department  of Public Safety (DPS).                                                                    
He  requested  an  explanation  of  the  current  monitoring                                                                    
Ms. Houston responded that the  department was not currently                                                                    
using  active GPS  monitoring.  She  said that  traditional,                                                                    
standard electronic  monitoring was  used and that  the most                                                                    
popular device could detect the scent of alcohol.                                                                               
Representative  Kawasaki understood  that  the  DOC did  not                                                                    
track the physical location of offenders.                                                                                       
Ms. Houston  replied that the  technology was being  used in                                                                    
the Lower  48. She said  that the department  had researched                                                                    
GPS  and found  that  it would  be possible  to  use in  the                                                                    
state. She  felt that it  should be used statewide  but that                                                                    
satellites might  not be readily available,  and that "urban                                                                    
canyons" could be a problem.                                                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki  asked   if  the  department  could                                                                    
comment on GPS monitoring for release on bail.                                                                                  
Ms.  Houston  replied  that the  guidelines  that  would  be                                                                    
developed in conjunction with DPS.  She thought that not all                                                                    
cases would result in GPS monitoring.                                                                                           
2:42:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki  believed that the policy  shift was                                                                    
significant.  He wanted  to know  how many  people could  be                                                                    
released and  whether public safety was  being considered at                                                                    
the forefront.  He hoped that releasing  offenders under GPS                                                                    
monitoring  was  not  being  considered  as  a  cost  saving                                                                    
2:42:52 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara  returned to  page 19  and the  issue of                                                                    
athletic coaches.  He believed that witness  of sexual abuse                                                                    
should report  abuse. He relayed that  many athletic coaches                                                                    
were paid  very little  and were without  training regarding                                                                    
child  abuse or  neglect.  He worried  that  if an  athletic                                                                    
coach did not  recognize the abuse was  happening they could                                                                    
be subject to incarceration.                                                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti stated  that if a person did  not notice child                                                                    
abuse  or neglect  then  they were  under  no obligation  to                                                                    
report.  She  stressed  that  if  the  coach  was  aware  of                                                                    
reasonable  evidence that  a child  was  being abused,  then                                                                    
they  were  required  to  report  to  the  authorities.  She                                                                    
explained that  there was  a criminal  penalty for  a person                                                                    
who was aware of reasonable  evidence that a child was being                                                                    
subject to abuse  who failed to report. She  said that there                                                                    
was only  one case in  the history  of the statute  that had                                                                    
been handed to the court,  and the prosecution was declined.                                                                    
She stressed that the purpose  of the statute was to require                                                                    
people who were  faced with the information to  report it to                                                                    
people who could help the child.                                                                                                
2:45:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  argued  that the  statute  was  poorly                                                                    
written, lumping volunteer coaches in with trained coaches.                                                                     
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that  the  bill originally  required                                                                    
volunteer coaches  to be subject to  the mandatory reporting                                                                    
requirements, which was removed,  and the current bill would                                                                    
not require a volunteer coach to report.                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Stoltze  wondered  where  the  idea  of  volunteer                                                                    
coaches being required to report had originated.                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  responded that the  issue had been  raised by                                                                    
the  occurrences at  Penn State  where athletic  coaches had                                                                    
not reported  many instances of  sexual abuse that  they had                                                                    
been  witness to,  which had  allowed for  new victims  year                                                                    
after year.                                                                                                                     
Representative  Gara  rebutted  that the  Penn  State  issue                                                                    
involved rape and that what  was being discussed in the bill                                                                    
was  not rape.  He stressed  that he  was not  interested in                                                                    
passing a  bill that  was going to  generate a  headline for                                                                    
something  that did  not  exist.  He said  if  the bill  was                                                                    
related to  athletic coaches  that had  observed a  rape, he                                                                    
would  be  on board.  He  believed  that coaches  should  be                                                                    
required to report high level  sexual crimes, but should not                                                                    
be accountable for leaving lesser crimes unnoticed.                                                                             
Ms.  Carpeneti  shared  that anyone  who  witnessed  certain                                                                    
crimes against  children was required to  report under Title                                                                    
11. She explained that the  rationale behind the language in                                                                    
the bill  was that  athletic coaches who  were paid  spent a                                                                    
lot  of  time with  children,  and  had the  opportunity  to                                                                    
observe any  potential harm to  a child. She stated  that it                                                                    
came  down to  a  policy decision;  whether the  legislature                                                                    
believed it  was important enough  that coaches  be required                                                                    
to report what was reasonably  believed to be child abuse or                                                                    
Representative  Gara  understood   that  the  provision  was                                                                    
intended  for   lesser  level  harm  and   that  the  issues                                                                    
surrounding the  Penn State case were  already covered under                                                                    
state law.                                                                                                                      
2:50:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Carpeneti   thought  that  it   would  depend   on  the                                                                    
circumstances  and what  were observed.  She  said that  the                                                                    
mandatory reporting provision was  meant to encourage people                                                                    
who  were in  a  position  to observe  harm  to children  to                                                                    
report  it  to authorities.  She  explained  that it  was  a                                                                    
violation not  to report a  crime against a child,  but that                                                                    
that was for  a particular incident. She  stressed that this                                                                    
provision was  meant to  encourage people who  had a  lot of                                                                    
contact with  a child  to report to  someone who  could help                                                                    
the child if the child was being abused or neglected.                                                                           
Ms.  Carpeneti stated  that the  episode at  Penn State  had                                                                    
generated a  lot of conversation throughout  the department.                                                                    
She noted that  if one were to look at  the other people who                                                                    
were  required to  report, it  made sense  that an  athletic                                                                    
coach that  spent a lot  of time  with would be  required to                                                                    
2:52:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Costello  stated that many  different coaches                                                                    
worked with  young people, and  many times the  coaches were                                                                    
parents.   She   expressed    a   concern   for   unintended                                                                    
consequences  that  could  occur in  relation  to  divorcing                                                                    
parents where one was a coach.                                                                                                  
Ms. Carpeneti  understood that most parent  coaches were not                                                                    
Representative  Costello  though  that the  provision  could                                                                    
discourage people from becoming paid athletic coaches.                                                                          
Co-Chair  Stoltze  added  that   it  was  not  uncommon  for                                                                    
children of volunteer coaches  to receive free scholarships,                                                                    
which could be viewed as a payment.                                                                                             
2:55:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Munoz agreed with  the pervious comments. She                                                                    
stated that the  inclusion in the current  statute of school                                                                    
teachers and  school administrative staff members  of public                                                                    
and private schools would apply  to paid school coaches. She                                                                    
thought that the issue might  be covered in current statute.                                                                    
She  lamented that  the language  was not  clear as  to what                                                                    
constituted "payment."  She added  that the  provision could                                                                    
be  applied to  many sports  teams. She  echoed the  concern                                                                    
that  the   provision  could  scare  off   potential  future                                                                    
Ms. Carpeneti  agreed that the language  was broadly written                                                                    
and could be revisited.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Stoltze  understood that  the Department  of Public                                                                    
Safety was the lead agency on the bill.                                                                                         
Ms.  Carpeneti  responded  that DOL  and  DPS  were  jointly                                                                    
Co-Chair  Stoltze stated  that the  bill was  the governor's                                                                    
2:57:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Neuman wondered  why a  reasonable person  would                                                                    
not report  a sexual assault.  He thought that  singling out                                                                    
athletic coaches was troublesome.                                                                                               
Representative Wilson  thought that  if there was  already a                                                                    
responsibility  to  report  that existed  in  statute,  what                                                                    
additional  protection would  result in  specifying athletic                                                                    
coaches in the bill.                                                                                                            
Ms. Carpeneti thought  that the provision in  Title 11, that                                                                    
made  it  a  violation  not to  report  a  witnessed  crime,                                                                    
differed from the provision because  it pertained to a crime                                                                    
happening and then being reported  in real time, rather than                                                                    
after the  fact. She  explained that the  duty to  report in                                                                    
Title 47, was  the duty to report abuse that  one had reason                                                                    
to believe was happening outside of their presence.                                                                             
3:00:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   maintained  her   objection   that                                                                    
athletic coaches  should not be  held to a  higher reporting                                                                    
standard than Girl Scout leaders, for example.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Stoltze  thought that the legislation  could create                                                                    
a body of criminal law that could be exploited.                                                                                 
Ms.  Carpeneti stated  Title, 47,  chapter 17,  contained an                                                                    
immunity section for people who reported.                                                                                       
3:01:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara pointed  out Page  19, line  8, to  the                                                                    
committee.  He thought  that the  language could  be changed                                                                    
for clarity to read:                                                                                                            
     "school teachers and school administrative staff                                                                           
     members; including athletic coaches of public and                                                                          
     private schools."                                                                                                          
Representative Kawasaki  asked about  Section 022,  of title                                                                    
47, which dealt with who  paid for the training to recognize                                                                    
abuse.  He  believed that  active  training  to be  able  to                                                                    
identify abuse or neglect was a  good idea.  He thought that                                                                    
the section  dealing with payment  of coaches  could include                                                                    
payment for training by the state.                                                                                              
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that  there  was training  curricula                                                                    
available online that  was similar to what  was available in                                                                    
3:04:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Meade   noted  that  currently,  in   some  cases,  GPS                                                                    
monitoring  was used  already for  people out  on bail.  The                                                                    
court  did  not order  people  to  use ankle  monitors,  but                                                                    
defense council  could request monitoring as  an alternative                                                                    
for those  who were unable  to meet requirements set  by the                                                                    
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                               
The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 22 Response to Questions DVSA_Dashboard_2013.pdf HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM
SB 22
SB 22 Amendments 1&2.pdf HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM
SB 22
SB 22 CDVSA letter H FIN 4.3.13.pdf HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM
SB 22
SB 22 Response to Rep. Neuman.PDF HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM
SB 22
SB 22 Response HFCGoodTime.pdf HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM
SB 22