Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2002 01:13 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 396 - ALCOHOL OFFENSE SURCHARGE/EQUIPMENT FUND Number 1448 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act relating to a surcharge on certain offenses for law enforcement equipment." He mentioned that the committee would also be hearing about some of the problems related to surcharges in general. Number 1467 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS), pointed out that there is a surcharge that funds the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC), and [that this surcharge] has been in place since 1995. Initially, there was some money from the general fund (GF) that went to support the APSC, and the surcharge from various crimes and convictions was used to provide additional training. As time has passed and the money has become "tighter," the general funds have been reduced, so that now the entire staff and the training is funded by the "police surcharge." He remarked that this follows a national pattern wherein the staffing of police standards programs and the training they provide is being funded by surcharges. He noted that on at least one occasion in the past eight years, the amount of a surcharge has been increased from what it was initially. MR. SMITH said that although he is not opposed to surcharges per se, he is concerned that "we sort of seem to be piling on surcharges for various and sundry events." And while he is not opposed to acquiring equipment for law enforcement, he said, at this point in time, because of problems encountered by the Alaska Court System (ACS) in collecting and tracking fines and surcharges, the DPS is not sure who is responsible for "which particular slice of the pie," and so adding one more surcharge might simply create more of a problem. He did note, however, that it is his understanding that in the near future, the ACS will be gaining the proper technology with which to "slice that pie and figure which surcharges came in" so that the money can then be properly distributed. MR. SMITH noted that HB 396 does not currently contain a mechanism by which the surcharges collected could be distributed to various law enforcement agencies. He opined that such a mechanism should be in place, rather than just having "everybody fighting over the money on [a] yearly basis and trying [to] get the legislature to appropriate for their particular desires." He noted that the APSC currently utilizes [a mechanism] to decide how the surcharge monies, which are used for training purposes, are distributed. He remarked that although HB 396 is a worthy bill, he is opposed to implementing it until "we have better handle, at the [Alaska] Court System, about who's paid what and where that money would ultimately go." More time needs to be spent figuring out the disbursement process, he opined. Number 1657 CHAIR ROKEBERG, after acknowledging that HB 396 doesn't really have a proper disbursement mechanism, asked whether it would be possible to disburse [surcharge monies] on a per-capita basis. MR. SMITH said that there probably are various schemes that could distribute those funds fairly; however, that issue has not yet been addressed in HB 396. CHAIR ROKEBERG, referring to how the APSC currently works, asked whether there is just one set of training programs that everybody attends, or if there are different programs for different jurisdictions. MR. SMITH indicated that according to his understanding: A certain amount of money comes in and obviously the police standards apportion goes toward the operation of that; they do provide some money for basic training for law enforcement - putting (indisc.) municipal officers through the [Alaska Law Enforcement Training (ALET) Program] in Sitka and also the [University of Alaska Fairbanks Tanana Valley Campus Law Enforcement Academy] that has come on line recently. Additional funds are then directed toward advanced training; they do not fully fund any agency, that I'm aware of, for basic training for law enforcement officers, [because there] simply is not enough money to do that. So, their decisions have to be made; there's more demand than there is money and, as a group, they make those decisions about how they're going to portion out that particular amount for that year. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked how [a police] department does its training budget if it has to rely on estimates of incoming surcharges. MR. SMITH explained that the departments, in advance, let the director of the APSC "know of their desires for funding, and he - through the council - advises them of what they could anticipate would be available to meet those needs." CHAIR ROKEBERG asked of the APSC's executive director whether he sees any potential problems with HB 396, whether he has any recommendations for fixing such problems, and how he envisions either this particular surcharge or any other surcharge working, given the current collection and disbursement system. He added that "if we were to focus on one clearinghouse, that might at least keep the accounting and the paper trail a little bit better." Number 1761 IRL STAMBAUGH, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), said the problem is that previously, and currently, collecting and disbursing surcharge monies is very difficult because of the ACS's current computer system. He estimated that "we are probably only collecting 60 percent of the money we should be collecting," because of the problems with the current collection process. He elaborated: There's no way to send it forward for collections on [permanent fund dividends (PFDs)], or any way at this point, because of the computer problems, to even send it forward to the [Department of Law (DOL)] for any form of collections. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the DOL now has a collections unit and it is just getting geared up. He asked whether the APSC could access that system. MR. STAMBAUGH said that was not possible due to the ACS's current computer system. He posited that once the ACS gets its new computer system in place, the collection of surcharges should increase and the ability to track those monies should improve. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that since currently there is only one surcharge, if any other surcharge is adopted, it will increase the level of complexity. MR. STAMBAUGH concurred, and said that it would then be very difficult, with the ACS's current computer system, to separate the funds in any fashion. Number 1870 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Smith to give the committee an idea of what he thinks fines are all about. MR. SMITH said: I believe, like any discipline, it is a punishment ... to make a person decide that that is not behavior they should engage in, in the future. You run the gamut - or continuum, if you will - of a verbal warning by a police officer for violating the speed limit, to getting a citation, to perhaps going to jail. All predicated and dedicated to the proposition that with the appropriate level, you will not engage in this activity again. CHAIR ROKEBERG, for comparison's sake, asked what a surcharge does. Does it "just raise the fine?" MR. SMITH concurred that that is basically what it does, without, however, specifically saying that the fine is being raised. He acknowledged that simply raising the fines would be another approach; then the legislature could simply appropriate part of that money back to whatever program it desired to fund. "The surcharge is another way to get there," he added. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, referring to when the fines and surcharges are paid, asked whether the surcharges were accounted for separately on the receipt. MR. SMITH said ideally, that's supposed to be what's occurring, although it may not actually be happening on a regular basis, as a practical matter, due to problems at the collection point. He mentioned that he has heard of offenders who, although they agree to pay the fine, refuse to pay the surcharge; he opined that that should "not clear that particular offense," but he is not entirely sure whether payment of the surcharge is pursued in those cases. Number 1960 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "I'm aghast that any agency of the state would collect money and not [issue] ... a receipt that [shows] what it's for," regardless of whether the amount owed is fully paid. She opined that the opportunity to tally [those funds] should be available somewhere, since people receive receipts for what they pay. MR. SMITH said he assumes that people do get receipts. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that perhaps this line of questioning would be more properly directed at the ACS representative. He mentioned that an article he'd read indicated that the state of Georgia is $3.2 million behind in its collections [of surcharges]. He opined that much of the problem, which many states are experiencing, probably stems from the fact that many offenders cannot pay all of their fines and surcharges at once and so that leads to problems with tracking and collection. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked how many fines actually get paid, and whether HB 396 would allow the state to garnish offenders' permanent fund dividends (PFDs) in order to collect the surcharge. MR. SMITH pointed out that the problem with collecting surcharges by garnishing PFDs is that "we can't go after somebody unless we're sure they didn't pay" the surcharge. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that HB 396 is also known as the Justin Wollam Act, and said he believes that the Anchorage Police Department (APD) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would like to see the [surcharge] implemented. He opined that collection of the surcharge should not be too difficult, and said he hopes that they can work through any collection problems. Number 2064 TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), said that although the MOA certainly appreciates the intent of HB 396 and understands that there are members of the APD who strongly support it, the MOA does have some concerns regarding local control. He pointed out that currently, DUI [driving under the influence] offenders are arrested by Municipality of Anchorage Police Department employees, and are prosecuted with municipal prosecutors under municipal codes. However, according to HB 396, the surcharge collected by such municipal cases must be paid to the state, without any guarantee that those funds would go back to the MOA for the acquisition of equipment. He said that the MOA believes it would be much better if "this issue" was left up to the local municipalities that have taken the burden off of the state in terms of prosecuting DUI offenders. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she likes that idea. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he does too. He asked whether any enabling legislation would be needed in order to make that option available to municipalities. MR. ROGERS said he did not think that enabling legislation would be necessary, but added that the issue ought to be researched more thoroughly. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that although she likes that idea, it only solves that aspect of the problem for Anchorage and similar municipalities, and does not address any of the other issues pertaining to surcharges in general. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he would like to know how many DUI cases come from the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas, adding that he would think it would be about 75 or 80 percent of all such cases. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that Representative Meyer's estimate gives her a little more comfort regarding having a local surcharge as opposed to a statewide surcharge. Number 2207 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), said that any rudimentary accounting software would be able to keep track of how much money has been paid versus how much money is owed, as well as who owes money and who doesn't. The trouble is that the ACS doesn't have accounting software; what the ACS utilizes is an antiquated computer system that was [designed] to do case statistics. He said that the ACS has "tried to cobble it to together as best we can to do some type of accounting, however, our current system cannot keep track of who has paid a surcharge [and] who has not paid a surcharge." Because of these limitations, he explained, the ACS cannot transfer to the Department of Law for collections any information regarding surcharges still owed because the ACS cannot tell whether any given individual has not yet paid a surcharge. MR. WOOLIVER said that statute does give the state the authority to go after PFDs for surcharges owed, but that cannot be done at this time because of the aforementioned problems. He noted that the ACS has received funds for a new computer system that will allow the ACS to separately track "as many surcharges as you have the imagination to come up with," and will allow the ACS to transfer information to the DOL for the purpose of collecting money owed from PFDs. However, because this new computer system is not yet in place, there is a stumbling block both to maintaining separate accounting for various types of surcharges and to collecting the surcharges currently in place. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how long it will take [to get the new system running]. Number 2273 MR. WOOLIVER said: We have a vendor; we went through a lengthy procurement process. Starting, hopefully, in June we'll have all the software built with the vendor. It's going to be in a trial program in Palmer ...; that program lasts about three months, where we work out all of the bugs. And then hopefully by the fall or early winter, we'll start expanding it around the state. We'll start with Anchorage, assuming that everything is working along, and by this winter, anyway, we should have that system working, at least in Anchorage. And then we have a timeline of two years to try [to] expand it, one court at a time, around the state until all our courts are online with our new computer system. That's our current timeline; we have the funding to do it, and we start, hopefully, ... this summer. CHAIR ROKEBERG, after noting that [the ACS] had recently received $2 million for that project, asked whether [the ACS] anticipates needing more funds to complete it. MR. WOOLIVER said he did not believe that [the ACS] would need additional funds for that. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the ACS is "kind of the lynchpin of the entire system," and so the aforementioned new computer system is necessary in order to be able to focus on collections. He surmised that even if this legislation, or any other legislation pertaining to surcharges, is adopted, the ACS is currently unable to efficiently collect or track such funds. MR. WOOLIVER concurred, but offered that that situation should change by this winter, at least in the Palmer and Anchorage areas, if the pilot programs are successful. TAPE 02-40, SIDE B Number 2371 GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, in response to a question, explained that the problems created by the ACS's antiquated computer system have been there since the first "surcharge bill" was enacted. He opined that the problem of being unable to differentiate among varieties of surcharges will remain even when the new system is in place. He noted that [all across the country], surcharges have become a favorite way to "pile a little cost on." CHAIR ROKEBERG asked how surcharges should be accounted for [with regard to collecting, tracking, and distributing]. MR. LUCKHAUPT observed that that issue is rather difficult to address because surcharges involve the concept of dedicated funds, which are not allowed by the Alaska State Constitution. He then listed some examples of the kinds of surcharges and assessments that other states have, adding that surcharges range from paying into victim's compensation funds to "surcharges for brain injuries." He observed that the courts [in those states] are not able to keep track of all those different surcharges, nor are they able to collect either the surcharges or the fines, which provide basic support for the criminal justice system, are the general deterrents to criminal action, and are the punishments for the criminal offenses. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned having read an article indicating that victims are being awarded funds before those funds are even collected, "so they're running a deficit in their crime victim's compensation accounts." MR. LUCKHAUPT concurred. He noted that there has been mention of having the monies from the surcharge proposed in HB 396 distributed automatically on a per capita basis, though that, too, involves the concept of dedicated funds, which, again, are not allowed. He also noted that even if the monies from this surcharge are incorporated into the existing "law enforcement training surcharge fund," the legislature would still have to appropriate those monies out of that fund; those monies could not just automatically go out to the municipalities because, again, that would involve creating a dedicated fund. Number 2145 MATT WILLIAMS, Officer, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), testified via teleconference. He remarked that the APD is also in favor of local control, as suggested by Mr. Rogers, since the vast majority of [DUIs] are charged under the municipal code and prosecuted with municipal prosecutors. He explained, however, that the Anchorage police chief, Walt Monegan, unlike Mr. Rogers, is under the impression that enabling legislation would be needed in order to give municipalities the ability to establish a surcharge for the purpose of purchasing law enforcement equipment. He said that the APD is in favor of having the APSC be responsible for allocating the monies collected via HB 396. MR. WILLIAMS pointed out that although quite a bit of the discussion thus far has focused on training and the role of the APSC, HB 396 does not have anything to do with training: instead, HB 396 focuses on collecting funds to purchase equipment that would assist law enforcement agencies in fighting alcohol-related crime. He opined that in addition to assisting law enforcement officers, a lot of the equipment that would be purchased with HB 396's surcharge monies could also shorten the time and frequency, and therefore the expense, of going to trial, because better evidence will be collected. With regard to the amount of the surcharge proposed in HB 396, he offered that the APD does not feel that $100 is too much. People who go out drinking often spend $100 very quickly, he observed; therefore, if people can afford to spend $100 on alcohol, they can afford the surcharge, and if for some reason they can't, there is the option of performing community work service. He asked the committee to continue its work on HB 396 so that the bill can become an effective law. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 396 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|