Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

01/24/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 63 REGULATION OF SMOKING TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 63(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 216 TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                                                                                                                                
2:18:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          HB 216-TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE  FOR HOUSE BILL  NO. 216, "An Act  relating to                                                               
restitution; relating to the office  of victims' rights; relating                                                               
to  transfers from  the dividend  fund; creating  the restorative                                                               
justice account; relating to  appropriations from the restorative                                                               
justice account for  services for and payments  to crime victims,                                                               
operating  costs  of  the   Violent  Crimes  Compensation  Board,                                                               
operation  of  domestic  violence and  sexual  assault  programs,                                                               
mental  health   services  and  substance  abuse   treatment  for                                                               
offenders,  and  incarceration   costs;  relating  to  delinquent                                                               
minors; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that two  additional fiscal notes  were added                                                               
to the committee packet that day.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN directed  attention  to a  letter in  the                                                               
committee  packet, dated  12/18/17, from  Sara Race,  Director of                                                               
the  Permanent  Fund  Dividend  Division  of  the  Department  of                                                               
Revenue, to Pat Pitney, Director  of the Office of Management and                                                               
Budget.   He  said the  letter spells  out what  amount of  money                                                               
would  become  part of  the  fund  proposed  under  HB 216.    He                                                               
indicated he would like  clarification regarding the calculations                                                               
in the letter.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:20:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SARA  RACE, Director,  Central  Office,  Permanent Fund  Dividend                                                               
Division,    Department    of    Revenue    (DOR),    recommended                                                               
Representative  Eastman look  at a  calculation breakdown  in the                                                               
committee   packet  [titled   "FY  19   PFD  Fund   Appropriation                                                               
Calculation for  Departments of Corrections and  Public Safety"].                                                               
She said the division bases  the amount available for calculation                                                               
on  the dividend  available  two  years ago.    She said  [4,588]                                                               
individuals  [from the  Department of  Corrections (DOC)  and 665                                                               
from the  Department of  Public Safety (DPS)]  who applied  for a                                                               
dividend in  2017 were later identified  as [incarcerated] felons                                                               
or misdemeanants  or [sentenced  felons].   She related  that the                                                               
division can  determine eligibility  on those  cases as  it would                                                               
for  any other  application  it receives  and  identify how  many                                                               
would otherwise have  been eligible [had they not  been denied as                                                               
a  felon  or  misdemeanant].    That  calculation  results  in  a                                                               
percentage  shown on  the breakdown.   She  pointed out  a couple                                                               
minor  adjustments  that are  made  to  result in  [an  estimated                                                               
number  of otherwise  eligible applicants],  and  that number  is                                                               
multiplied  by the  dividend amount  to come  up with  the [total                                                               
appropriation].                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  pointed out the amount  of [11,429, under                                                               
the   category  of   estimated  number   of  otherwise   eligible                                                               
applicants],  and   he  asked  how  the   division  accounts  for                                                               
individuals  whose PFD  is  already "going  toward  some kind  of                                                               
restitution."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE   answered  that  when  the   division  is  determining                                                               
eligibility a  garnishment has not  yet been applied.   Those who                                                               
filed   could   have   had   garnishments   attached   to   their                                                               
applications, but they  would have been denied  because they were                                                               
a felon or misdemeanant.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Ms.  Race if she  has any  idea how                                                               
many of the [11,429] might fall  into the category of those whose                                                               
PFDs  are "already  not  going  to them"  but  instead are  being                                                               
directed toward  restitution for  crimes victims,  child support,                                                               
for example.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered that the division  would not have the number of                                                               
individuals  that  fall  into  that   category  "for  the  entire                                                               
population";  however, the  division  would have  "a pretty  good                                                               
idea of how many that would  be of the 4,500 individuals that did                                                               
apply  for  a  dividend."    The division  could  look  at  those                                                               
applications to  determine whether there were  "garnishments that                                                               
would have otherwise  been applied if they had been  paid and not                                                               
denied."  In response to a  follow-up question, she said she does                                                               
not have that number available right now.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:23:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for  confirmation that the state is                                                               
"taking  permanent fund  dividends  from  ineligible people  that                                                               
normally would  not, because of  a conviction, ... be  allowed to                                                               
receive the dividend."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE confirmed that is correct.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said basically the state  is taking that                                                               
money and  redistributing it, and  in [2017] 94 percent  "went to                                                               
the offender[s]  themselves to  pay for  their healthcare  in the                                                               
last  year according  to the  last  testimony or  helping pay,  I                                                               
think it was  6 percent, to restitution."   She inquired whether,                                                               
if the  state did not do  that, the money from  ineligible people                                                               
would  go  back  into  the  corpus  or  earnings  reserve  or  be                                                               
distributed among other Alaskans.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The calculation is part of  statute now, and the amount                                                                    
     available that  is calculated  through this  process is                                                                    
     available  for appropriation.   So,  past that  point I                                                                    
     really  can't speak  to how  it is  broken into  the 94                                                                    
      percent that you speak to that's going to Department                                                                      
     of Corrections.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE indicated that if  statute changed regarding individuals                                                               
that fall into  this category, then the money would  go back into                                                               
the dividend fund  and then become available  for the calculation                                                               
process for individuals that are receiving a dividend.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:26:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked whether  DOC is an  eligible recipient                                                               
of the fund.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE answered,  "They are  one of  the individuals  that are                                                               
listed in the priority order available for appropriation."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP clarified  there  are five  or six  eligible                                                               
recipients  and,  as  Representative Reinbold  pointed  out,  one                                                               
recipient is  "pretty much consuming all  the fund."  He  said it                                                               
is  the criminal  fund, and  he said  he thinks  the question  is                                                               
whether  that  money, if  not  going  to  an inmate  fund,  would                                                               
"rotate back out  of the criminal fund" or "stay  in the criminal                                                               
fund itself."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE  replied that the  money available to the  criminal fund                                                               
is appropriated  directly from  the dividend  fund.   She offered                                                               
her understand  that if no  part of  this was listed  in statute,                                                               
then that money would be available to pay dividends.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  summarized that "these  eligible recipients"                                                               
are paid  out of  the criminal  fund through  a formula  that the                                                               
Office of Management and Budget applies.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The money  that we calculate  here is what we  refer to                                                                    
     OMB  through  the  [memorandum], and  from  that  point                                                                    
     forward, if it wasn't appropriated,  ... I'm not sure I                                                                    
     could answer that question.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to the  1980 law  that established                                                               
the  crime victim  compensation  fund, and  indicated that  under                                                               
SSHB 216, the  amount of the dividends that  would otherwise have                                                               
been  paid  to  those  who  are not  eligible  because  of  their                                                               
criminal  convictions would  be  appropriated  annually from  the                                                               
dividend  fund  to  the  crime  victim  compensation  fund.    He                                                               
referred to  [Representative Reinbold's]  question as  to whether                                                               
those dividends would  go somewhere else if not to  the fund, and                                                               
he said  he is not  aware that that  has ever happened  but would                                                               
like to know if it has.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE  responded that  she is  not aware  that [that  has ever                                                               
happened].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  concluded, "So,  it's  available  to go  to                                                               
eligible  recipients as  far as  you know  rather than  being re-                                                               
appropriated for other purposes."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE answered that's correct.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:29:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented  that he would like  to know how                                                               
many  of 4,500  incarcerated persons  "already ...  did not  have                                                               
access  to the  PFD  because it  had already  been  taken by  the                                                               
courts to ...  go to someone who  deserved it more."   He said he                                                               
suspects a number of Alaskans deserve  to see those funds, and he                                                               
is hesitant  to "maintain  the system"  wherein "the  state takes                                                               
those funds."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:30:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  emphasized  that  when a  felon  or  repeat                                                               
misdemeanant is ineligible  to receive a dividend  "that money is                                                               
not  going  to  anything  else  but  victim  compensation."    He                                                               
continued as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     So, they would  have an excellent argument  to go right                                                                    
     to [the Office of Victims'  Rights] (OVR), who is going                                                                    
     to  be taking  care of  restitutions, the  crime victim                                                                    
     compensation fund, or  eligible nonprofit organizations                                                                    
     that  provide grants  for crime  victims and  show them                                                                    
     their order.   And this bill  prioritizes victims first                                                                    
     out  of  this fund,  which  right  now they're  victims                                                                    
     last.   So,  if  we're truly  concerned about  victims,                                                                    
     you're  right,  there  may be  a  small  percentage  of                                                                    
     people who  were on a  payment plan - that  dividend is                                                                    
     not lost,  it is going directly  to victim restoration,                                                                    
     but it's not like it's going to ... something else.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  clarified  that  SSHB  216  would  bring  a                                                               
significantly   greater  quantity   of   resource  to   restoring                                                               
survivors of crime than anything under current law.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:31:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN said  the decision  made several  years ago  to put                                                               
dividend money for  which people are not eligible into  a fund is                                                               
not a  decision up  for discussion.   The focus  today is  how to                                                               
prioritize the money that has been set aside.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would  entertain amendments to SSHB 216, and                                                               
he  noted  that  Legislative  Legal  and  Research  Services  has                                                               
permission to  make any technical  and conforming changes  to the                                                               
bill based on any amendments adopted.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:33:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS moved  to  adopt  Amendment 1,  to                                                               
SSHB 216,  labeled 30-LS0572\T.1, Martin, 1/18/18,  which read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 8 - 11:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(3)  nonprofit organizations to provide                                                                         
       grants for services for crime victims and domestic                                                                       
     violence and sexual assault programs;                                                                                      
            (4)  nonprofit organizations to provide                                                                             
     grants for mental health services and substance abuse                                                                      
     treatment for offenders; and"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  deferred to his staff  to speak to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:33:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NOAH STAR, Staff,  Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, spoke to Amendment 1  to SSHB 216 on behalf of                                                               
Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins.     He  explained   the  proposed                                                               
amendment  would  switch  the  order  of  the  third  and  fourth                                                               
priorities listed  under SSHB  216 such  that "crime  victims and                                                               
domestic violence  and sexual assault  programs" would  be listed                                                               
before "mental health services and  substance abuse treatment for                                                               
offenders".                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD emphasized her support for Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:35:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the bill sponsor why the two                                                                       
organizations were listed the way they are listed in SSHB 216.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:35:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that both recipients are important.                                                                
He stated support for Amendment 1.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:36:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to                                                                   
adopt Amendment 1.  There being no further objection, Amendment                                                                 
1 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:36:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 2, to SSHB 216,                                                                
labeled 30-LS0572\T.2, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6, following "costs;":                                                                                      
          Insert    "relating    to    contributions    from                                                                  
     dividends;"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, following line 5:                                                                                                  
          Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                     
        "* Sec. 8. AS 43.23.062(a) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (a)  Notwithstanding AS 43.23.069, the Department                                                                     
     of   Revenue  shall   prepare  the   electronic  Alaska                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  application  to   allow  an                                                                    
     applicant  who  files  electronically  to  direct  that                                                                    
     money  be  subtracted  from the  dividend  payment  and                                                                    
     contributed  to  the  crime  victim  compensation  fund                                                                
     (AS 18.67.162),  the  peace   officer  and  firefighter                                                                
     survivors'   fund,  or   [TO]  one   or  more   of  the                                                                
     educational  organizations,  community foundations,  or                                                                    
     charitable   organizations    that   appear    on   the                                                                    
     contribution  list  contained  in  the  application.  A                                                                    
     contribution  to the  crime  victim compensation  fund,                                                                
     the peace  officer and  firefighter survivors'  fund or                                                                    
     to  an organization  may  be $25,  $50,  $75, $100,  or                                                                    
     more, in increments  of $50, up to the  total amount of                                                                    
     the  permanent  fund  dividend that  the  applicant  is                                                                    
     entitled   to  receive.   If   the   total  amount   of                                                                    
     contributions  elected  by  an  applicant  exceeds  the                                                                    
     amount  of   the  permanent  fund  dividend   that  the                                                                    
     applicant is  entitled to receive,  contributions shall                                                                    
     be deducted from the dividend  in the order of priority                                                                    
     elected by  the applicant on the  application until the                                                                    
     entire  amount of  the dividend  that the  applicant is                                                                    
     entitled to receive is  allocated for contribution. The                                                                    
     electronic  dividend  application   form  must  include                                                                    
     notice  that seven  percent  of  the money  contributed                                                                    
     will  be  used  for administrative  costs  incurred  in                                                                    
     implementing this section, and  money from the dividend                                                                    
     fund will not be used for that purpose.                                                                                    
        * Sec. 9. AS 43.23.062(b) is amended to read:                                                                         
          (b)  The department shall list each educational                                                                       
     organization,   community  foundation,   or  charitable                                                                    
     organization  eligible  under  (c)   and  (d)  of  this                                                                    
     section, each university campus  that applies under (l)                                                                    
     of this  section, the  crime victim  compensation fund,                                                                
     and the  peace officer and firefighter  survivors' fund                                                                    
     on   the  contribution   list.  The   department  shall                                                                    
     maintain  an electronic  database for  the contribution                                                                    
     list that is accessible to  the public and that permits                                                                    
     searches  by  organization  or  fund  name,  geographic                                                                    
     location,  and type.  The  department  shall provide  a                                                                    
     statement of  the contributions  made by  an individual                                                                    
     that  is suitable  for federal  income tax  purposes to                                                                    
     each individual  who elects to contribute  under (a) of                                                                    
     this section.                                                                                                              
        * Sec. 10. AS 43.23.062(m) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (m)  In addition to the application fee in (f) of                                                                     
     this   section,  the   department   shall  withhold   a                                                                    
     coordination  fee from  each organization,  foundation,                                                                    
     or university campus  that receives contributions under                                                                    
     this  section  in  the immediately  preceding  dividend                                                                    
     year.  The   coordination  fee  for   an  organization,                                                                    
     foundation,   or   university  campus   that   receives                                                                    
     contributions  under   this  section  shall   be  seven                                                                    
     percent of the amount  of contributions reported by the                                                                    
     department   under  (j)   of  this   section  for   the                                                                    
     organization, foundation, or  university campus for the                                                                    
     immediately preceding  dividend year.  The coordination                                                                    
     fee   shall   be   separately   accounted   for   under                                                                    
     AS 37.05.142  and  shall  be accounted  for  separately                                                                    
     from the  application fee collected  under (f)  of this                                                                    
     section. The  annual estimated  balance in  the account                                                                    
     maintained  under  AS 37.05.142 for  coordination  fees                                                                    
     collected  under this  subsection  may be  appropriated                                                                    
     for   costs   of   administering  this   section.   The                                                                    
     department  may not  withhold  a  coordination fee  for                                                                    
     contributions to the crime victim compensation fund or                                                                 
     the peace officer and firefighter survivors' fund."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:36:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  prefaced her explanation of  Amendment 2                                                               
by  relating that  a lot  of people  are not  giving as  much [in                                                               
donations]  as  they  used  to  give.    She  said  the  proposed                                                               
amendment would allow  eligible recipients of the  PFD the option                                                               
of donating  their PFD  monies to  the crime  victim compensation                                                               
fund through an existing method called ["Click, Pick, Give"].                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  stated his  support  of  Amendment 2.    He                                                               
added,  "The   Restorative  Justice  Account,  which   holds  the                                                               
appropriation, it's ...  number one priority is  the crime victim                                                               
compensation fund, which  Representative Reinbold has identified;                                                               
so, this would just move it  into the top priority voluntarily by                                                               
people on the ... Pick, Click, and Give-type of thing, I guess."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said  he likes Amendment 2  but wonders if                                                               
the  Permanent  Fund  Dividend Division  may  be  concerned  that                                                               
adding  too  many recipient  choices  on  Pick, Click,  Give  may                                                               
"dampen the giving spirit."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:38:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE  responded that  the  division  has not  done  specific                                                               
studies on the issue, but  she offered her understanding that the                                                               
Alaska Community  Foundation, which houses the  Pick, Click, Give                                                               
program,  would have  data.    She said  there  are search  tools                                                               
available to  help individuals narrow  the search  for charitable                                                               
organizations on Pick, Click, Give.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  for confirmation  that  there  are  service                                                               
charges associated with  the Pick, Click, Give  program such that                                                               
100 percent of a donation does not go to the donor's choice(s).                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE confirmed  that 7 percent of a donation  is collected in                                                               
administrative fees to cover the running of the program.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked if the same  7 percent would be  taken out if                                                               
someone  chose the  crime victim  compensation  fund under  Pick,                                                               
Click,  Give, even  though it  is a  state funded  program rather                                                               
than a nonprofit organization.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RACE  answered  that  the peace  officer  and  fire  fighter                                                               
survivors'  fund is  excluded from  the 7  percent administrative                                                               
fee and so, too, would be the crime victim compensation fund.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:40:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his  understanding that one of the                                                               
reasons  for  the   administrative  cost  is  that   there  is  a                                                               
verification  process involved.    He echoed  Ms. Race's  comment                                                               
that the crime victim compensation fund would be exempt.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER removed  his objection  to the  motion to                                                               
adopt Amendment 2.   There being no  further objection, Amendment                                                               
2 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:41:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Amendment 3,  to SSHB  216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.5, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 23, following "Law":                                                                                          
          Insert "If the Department of Law receives a                                                                       
      response to the notice before the 90-day period, the                                                                  
         Department of Law may begin collection on the                                                                      
     restitution."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 9, following "Law":                                                                                           
          Insert "If the Department of Law receives a                                                                       
      response to the notice before the 90-day period, the                                                                  
         Department of Law may begin collection on the                                                                      
     restitution."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:41:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP spoke  to Amendment  3.   He  said it  would                                                               
clarify that once the Department  of Law receives notice from the                                                               
crime victim, the department  may immediately begin "aggressively                                                               
providing assistance."  The  clarification would, under Amendment                                                               
3, be applied to two sections of SSHB 216.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:42:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER asked  if "this"  would hamper  a person,                                                               
who  at  first decided  not  to  ask  for restitution  but  later                                                               
decides he/she wants restitution.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Once an  order is  given, the  Department of  Law gives                                                                    
     notice  to the  eligible  recipient that  they have  90                                                                    
     days to  elect to  collect the restitution  without the                                                                    
     assistance of the Department of Law.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP directed  attention to  language on  page 2,                                                               
line 23, of SSHB 216, which read:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     A  recipient may  inform  the Department  of  Law at  a                                                                    
     later time  of the recipient's election  to collect the                                                                    
     restitution  without the  assistance of  the Department                                                                    
     of Law                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said there is  no time [constraint]  on that                                                               
provision, so a person could decide  a year later he/she does not                                                               
want help.  He said he  does not know if Representative Fansler's                                                               
question was  in terms  of a year  later someone  deciding he/she                                                               
does want help.   He said he thinks it makes sense  in the law to                                                               
have some time limitation.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN directed  attention  to the  answer  to the  issue,                                                               
which is  in Section  3, on  page 2, lines  26-29, which  read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     A  recipient  who has  elected  under  this section  to                                                                    
     collect  restitution  without  the  assistance  of  the                                                                    
     Department of  Law may not  later request  the services                                                                    
     of that department to collect the restitution.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:44:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that that is current law.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  indicated  that  is the  answer  he  was                                                               
seeking.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:44:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said he thinks everyone  is assuming that                                                               
the  proposed phrase  "receives a  response to  the notice"  - as                                                           
read in  Amendment 3 - means  a person wants to  "move forward on                                                               
this."  He  questioned whether the committee  should specify what                                                               
type of response.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  the  context of  the  sentence in  its                                                               
entirety - "If  the Department of Law receives a  response to the                                                           
notice before the 90-day period,  the Department of Law may begin                                                           
collection  on  the  restitution"   -  is  obvious,  because  the                                                           
department would not  begin collection on the  restitution if the                                                               
person had said he/she did not want it.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  if  there is  any  intent  for  a                                                               
minimum waiting period.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  answered that the  key word in  the sentence                                                               
is "before", which  allows the process to start  immediately - as                                                           
soon as the department is notified.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:46:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER withdrew  his objection  to Amendment  3.                                                               
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:46:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Amendment 4,  to SSHB  216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.6, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 7 - 9:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(b)  The office of victims' rights shall make                                                                        
        restitution payments to eligible victims in the                                                                         
     following priority order:"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:46:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that language  on page 3, lines 7-8, of                                                               
SSHB  216,  read:   "If  an  order  of restitution  provides  for                                                               
payment  to more  than one  crime victim".   Representative  Kopp                                                               
said that  sounds like a  restitution order for  multiple people.                                                               
Amendment 4  would highlight the  priority order,  which reflects                                                               
current practice.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how OVR  would be instructed to deal                                                               
with instances where there is more  than one crime victim if that                                                               
language is changed under Amendment 4.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that  under the current system, once                                                               
a  case is  adjudicated and  it is  time to  issue a  restitution                                                               
order,  the court  would notify  OVR of  the restitution  orders,                                                               
which  would enable  the office  to connect  with the  victims to                                                               
offer assistance  in getting victims'  orders paid and  work with                                                               
the Permanent Fund  Dividend Division.  He  added, "This actually                                                               
empowers OVR  in a  way they  have not  been empowered  before to                                                               
represent victims in getting them restitution."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  if  Representative Eastman's  question                                                               
pertains to  multiple victims  on a  single incident,  then those                                                               
individuals  are  distinct  victims and  would  receive  distinct                                                               
restitution orders.  The priority [as  shown on page 3, lines 10-                                                               
12, of SSHB 216], would remain as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                    (1) a natural person;                                                                                       
                    (2) private businesses;                                                                                     
                    (3) state and local governments.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN offered  a situation  in which  there are                                                               
two  crimes and  a victim  from  each one,  and he  asked if  the                                                               
Office  of Victims'  Rights would  prioritize  the first  natural                                                               
person and get PFD funds to him/her  but not be able to get funds                                                               
to the other person whose chronological order is second.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  replied   that  Representative   Eastman's                                                               
question is answered on [page 3], lines 13-15, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (c) The office of victims' rights shall adopt                                                                         
     regulations  under AS  44.62 (Administrative  Procedure                                                                    
     Act)   to  establish   a   process   for  payments   of                                                                    
     restitution  balances  from   the  restorative  justice                                                                    
     account established in AS 43.23.048.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  stated, "It's  very difficult in  statute to                                                               
get  down  into  the  weeds  of  what  needs  to  happen  on  the                                                               
regulation  level."    Regulation   cannot  violate  statute  and                                                               
carries out  the will of  statutes, he  said.  He  concluded, "We                                                               
are putting  into the  law the vehicle  from which  regulation is                                                               
enabled,  which   will  answer  those  thornier   questions,  and                                                               
certainly there  is public comment  periods and things  like that                                                               
for us to comment on."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:50:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER removed  his objection  to the  motion to                                                               
adopt Amendment 4.   There being no  further objection, Amendment                                                               
4 was adopted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:50:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved  to adopt Amendment 5,  to SSHB 216,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0572\T.3, Martin, 1/23/18, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 31:                                                                                                           
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
          Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
          Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 30 - 31:                                                                                                     
          Delete "if they had been eligible"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:51:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke  to Amendment 5.   He explained that                                                               
by  removing  the   words  "if  they  had   been  eligible",  the                                                               
assumption  would  be  that those  individuals  would  have  been                                                               
eligible,  which  is the  process  he  said the  department  uses                                                               
currently wherein if someone is  incarcerated and convicted, then                                                               
the  assumption  is that  he/she  would  have been  eligible  but                                                               
because of the  conviction/incarceration he/she is not.   He said                                                               
that is what triggers the money to restorative justice account.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP responded  that  Representative Eastman  had                                                               
identified a  legislative drafting  style.  He  suggested reading                                                               
the  first part  of  [paragraph (6)],  on page  4,  line 29,  and                                                               
adjoining it with the final words  on line 31, such that it read:                                                               
"the total  amount that would have  been paid" "if they  had been                                                               
eligible".   He said  this language  has been  in statute  for 30                                                               
years   and   has  worked   for   the   Department  of   Revenue.                                                               
Representative  Kopp  again  suggested compacting  the  words  in                                                               
[subsection (b)],  on page  5, lines  4 and 7,  to read:   "total                                                               
amount that  would have been  paid" "if they had  been eligible".                                                               
He  said  deleting  "if  they had  been  eligible"  just  changes                                                               
drafting style;  it's a different  way of saying the  same thing.                                                               
He indicated  that adopting Amendment 5  could complicate things,                                                               
because the  committee would  be "messing with  a section  of law                                                               
that's worked well for a long time."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:53:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  indicated that she would  have supported                                                               
the  proposed amendment  "if we  weren't collecting  from anybody                                                               
ineligible."   However,  she opined  that deleting  "if they  had                                                               
been eligible"  is undermining, because  "who are we to  stop ...                                                               
if they'd never been eligible in  the first place?"  She said she                                                               
would oppose Amendment 5.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:54:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said  he gathers that Amendment  5 is just                                                               
wordsmithing.    He  asked if  it  was  Representative  Eastman's                                                               
thought to delete the words as  a way of making the language more                                                               
concise.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that  Amendment 5 is directed to                                                               
someone  who is  not  privy  to the  way  the  language has  been                                                               
interpreted by  the department.   He said the assumption  is that                                                               
"we're only dealing  with individuals who are  eligible and then,                                                               
because of  their conviction or incarceration,  they are rendered                                                               
ineligible."    He  said  there   are  many  requirements  to  be                                                               
eligible;  one  of  them  is  that  a  person  must  apply.    He                                                               
continued:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     But  that's not  the way  that ...  the department  has                                                                    
     interpreted  it.   They have  interpreted it  as though                                                                    
     those  words  were  not,  in   fact,  there.    They've                                                                    
     interpreted it as though if  you are incarcerated or if                                                                    
     you  have received  a conviction,  ... you're  still in                                                                    
     Alaska,  you've ...  accomplished your  eligibility and                                                                    
     so  forth,   and  so  we'll   just  ...   presume  that                                                                    
     eligibility.   And so, ... what  I've suggested through                                                                    
     this  amendment   is  that  instead  of   obliging  the                                                                    
     department to sort of  make that interpretive decision,                                                                    
     make it more clear in the  language that we are not, in                                                                    
     fact, requiring anyone to apply,  so that then they can                                                                    
     be found  ineligible by virtue  of their  conviction or                                                                    
     incarceration.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:56:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested there may  be some confusion in the                                                               
matter.  He offered clarification as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     You  are  presumed  in  the law  to  not  be  eligible,                                                                    
     period,  even if  you  have applied.    ... It  doesn't                                                                    
     matter; ... that is now  an ineligible dividend, and it                                                                    
     goes into this crime [victim] compensation fund.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:56:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered a scenario in  which someone comes                                                               
to Alaska, commits a  crime on day one in the  state, and ends up                                                               
in jail.  She said the person  would not only be ineligible for a                                                               
PFD  because of  being  incarcerated, but  he/she  would also  be                                                               
ineligible   [for   not   having  met   the   minimum   residency                                                               
requirement].   She asked  if that person's  money would  go into                                                               
[the crime victim compensation fund].                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the answer  is no because the person was                                                               
already not  eligible [before  he/she committed  the crime].   He                                                               
said [SSHB 216] addresses AS  43.23.005(d), which pertains to the                                                               
criminal aspects  regarding disqualification.  He  said there are                                                               
other  [subsections], including  one that  addresses a  residency                                                               
requirement.   The proposed legislation  focuses on a  person who                                                               
is otherwise eligible but for subsection (d) of the statute.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:59:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  questioned  how  a  person  who  is  not                                                               
eligible [for a PFD] would "impact this situation."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. RACE pointed back to  the aforementioned calculation page and                                                               
continued as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Because we do have 4,500  individuals that do apply for                                                                    
     the dividend, we are able  to walk through the standard                                                                    
     eligibility  process, which  would  then  speak to  any                                                                    
     other eligibility  requirements that  those individuals                                                                    
     did not meet,  which is why a percentage  is applied to                                                                    
     the total number of individuals  that are reported from                                                                    
     DPS and Public Safety rather than 100 percent.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:00:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  announced that Amendment  5 would be  left pending.                                                               
He noted  that Representative Eastman  had supplied  a memorandum                                                               
addressing the issue,  and he said he would distribute  it to the                                                               
committee  in  future.    He  noted the  last  paragraph  of  the                                                               
memorandum written by Hillary Martin  advises caution in amending                                                               
a statute  that has  existed for years  and has  been interpreted                                                               
one way.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[SSHB 216 was held over.]                                                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB063 Supporting Document-National VFW Notice 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Supporting 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Opposing & Amend 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Amendments #1-2.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation revised 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Old DOC Fiscal Note SB104-DOC-OC-01-21-14 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
SB 104
HB216 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOA-VCCB 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Updated Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 DOC Medicaid Coverage Memo 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Amendments #1-5.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216