Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 06:07 PM Senate FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 108 "An Act relating to fees for probation and parole." BEN GRIN, staff to Senator Jerry Ward, would charge Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if he had a chance to review the fiscal notes. Ben had not and admitted he was unfamiliar with the bill. Bruce Richards began by telling the history of the matter. A bill had been adopted and Senator Al Adams had then repealed the legislation. The process was very difficult for the department. The difference in this bill was that it dictated the department contract out the bill collection process. They had been unable to find an agency willing to take on the process. This group of people tended to be difficult to work with. This year, the department was able to find a bank willing to do this. He detailed the proposed collection process. He noted earlier testimony on the success of a similar program in Texas. The reason for that success was that the judge set the priority above child support and restitution. The fiscal note provided was based on a ten- percent collection rate and would not provide a cash flow. The last time this law was in effect the program only brought in $12,000. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the dollar figure was $1.50. Bruce Richards said it was and that was the national average. Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the sponsor statement was from the prior year. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked how many people this would apply to. Bruce Richards listed the numbers for adults. Department of Health and Social Services would have numbers for youth parolees. Bruce Richards added that it was unclear in the bill that it was possible to be on probation and parole at the same time. He suggested an amendment to change that so the person did not have to pay twice since they had the same parole officer. He referred to page 3 saying that if the PFD was over the amount due, the Department of Corrections would have to refund the difference. He suggested changing that so the department did not have the burden of collecting and then returning a balance. He suggested deleting the language. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if once the assignment was made by the department, he assumed they could only collect after other attachments were made. Bruce Richards affirmed and said that was the reason the department did not anticipate they would collect much after all the other obligations were satisfied. Senator Al Adams observed that this would be a paperwork nightmare. It created two groups of people, parolees and those of probation. Was there any chance an inmate could be both. Bruce Richards said that was his earlier point. Senator Al Adams asked if the department felt this would create a greater burden in collection efforts than it would generate. Bruce Richards said it was and said that was the reason for the fiscal note. Blair McCune, spoke to the difficulties of collection. The PDA would not have a fiscal note if the process was set up to not include probation hearings in the determination of collection efforts. He noted that many of his clients did not have much assets after they settled their other obligations. He told the committee which statutes applied to the Page 2 line31 he understood it to mean this applied only to situations with close supervision. He had concerns that the level of supervision was light for those who did well. He felt the fee would have to be commensurate with the cost of the supervision. He also had concerns with the parents of children in probation. In some situations the parent or a sibling of the child were the victim. He referred to language that said the parole board "shall" revoke parole and felt they should have some discretion. Senator Al Adams asked if the agency would handle both parolees and those on probation who were charged with not paying. Would that increase the workload? Blair said they represented before the parole board those faced with returning to jail. They would be impacted because they had the burden of showing how the non-payment was justified. ROBERT BUTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of Health and Social Services, testified in opposition to the bill. He suggested deleting sections from the bill in order to exempt juvenile offenders from the provisions. The department would have to have to create a collection unit that would not serve the mission of the department. Department of Health and Social Services placed a high obligation on the parent to participate in the process. That included financial obligations. Sometimes the other costs of these youths placed a burden on the family's finances. He also spoke of instances where the victim is also a member of the family. Senator Al Adams noted most of the PFD collected went to the victims. He asked that percentage. Robert Butcane was unsure but said most restitution in was beyond the amount of the PFD so most went to the victim. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about the victim service grants listed on the fiscal note. Robert Butcane answered that when the accounts showed receipts in excess of expenditures, the balance was intended to go to support victim services. This would be done by means of grants to community organizations to benefit those who experienced the impact of juvenile crime. This presumed the provided figures were accurate Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarification that the bill did not stipulate a specific grant program. Robert Butcane affirmed. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|