Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 09:30 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 29, 2000
9:30 A.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 87, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 87, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:30 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Moses
Representative Austerman Representative Phillips
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Tim Kelly; Lauree Hogonin, Director, Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Juneau;
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law: Kris Knauss, Staff, Senator
Pearce.
SUMMARY
HB 366 An Act relating to the rights of crime victims,
the crime of violating a protective order or
injunction, mitigating factors in sentencing for
an offense, and the return of certain seized
property to victims; expanding the scope of the
prohibition of compromise based on civil remedy of
misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence;
amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17, Alaska
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
9, Alaska Rules of Administration.
HB 366 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 269 An Act relating to the deadline for the submission
of monetary terms of collective bargaining
contracts between the state and a labor or
employee organization representing state employees
to the legislature.
CS 269 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am
An Act relating to legislative powers and
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining
agreements between the state and a labor or employee
organization representing state employees; and
providing for an effective date.
SENATOR KELLY noted that he did not support Amendment #1, 1-
LS1386\KA.3, Cramer, 3/27/00. [Copy on File]. He commented
that there could be some language developed which could take
care of the University of Alaska. The intent of the
legislation is to make certain that, following the court
decision, that the Legislature must fund new contracts. The
language has created ambiguity whether it should include the
non-monetary terms. He pointed out that verbiage contained
in one of the new contracts, clarifies that provisions of
the agreement not require Legislature funding before they
are put into effect and implemented on the effective date of
the agreement. If the Legislature should decide that this
year the contracts would not be funded, according to the
agreement, the non-monetary terms would go into effect. If
there should be a second round of negotiations, the
contracts would already have the non-monetary terms in the
"bank".
He reiterated that the idea is to clarify that non-monetary
terms do not go into effect until the monetary terms are
approved by the Legislature. The next step clarifies that
it would be an administrative nightmare to change non-
monetary terms during the three-year time span of the
contract. Once the monetary terms are funded, the non-
monetary terms would go into effect. If the monetary terms
of the contract are not funded, the non-monetary terms stay
in effect until the end of that contract. The Legislature
would need to reappropriate each year of a multi-year
contract. Next year, the Legislature will come back and
reappropriate funding for the increase in health benefits
and the 2% salary increase.
Representative J. Davies countered that the "clarification"
actually makes the legislation "muddier". He pointed out
that the amendment addresses that concern.
Representative J. Davies noted that there are many non-
monetary provisions that are not controversial. He
suggested that in the interest of the Unions and in the
interest of the State, those things should move forward. He
noted concern that the non-controversial things are
disallowed. He noted that would not be in the best interest
of either the State or the Legislature. Additionally, he
asked, if the monetary terms were not signed and the non-
monetary terms then would not be effect, at that time would,
the Unions be at an impasse and strike. Representative J.
Davies believed that situation will "trigger" a lot of
strikes, which could otherwise have been avoided.
Representative J. Davies added that the multi-year contracts
would remove the "right to strike" in the second and third
year. Senator Kelly suggested that normally these types of
things are "trade offs". He thought that they would remain
under the provisions of the old contract until there was
agreement with the new contract. In response to comments by
Representative J. Davies, Senator Kelly explained that if
the Legislature does not fund each of the twelve contracts,
a number of possibilities could happen. It is hoped that if
the Legislature does not fund the contracts, they would be
renegotiated.
Senator Kelly advised that he did not know what would happen
with the contracts this year, but anticipated that they
would be renegotiated. He did not know if that would
"waive" the right to strike. He thought that there was
language in the bill, which indicates that if the second and
third years of the contracts are not funded, they do not
give up the right to strike. Senator Kelly understood that
work was being done on a committee substitute which would
redefine the monetary terms to include benefits.
Representative J. Davies stated that the terms of the
contracts were negotiated under the status quo. There would
be different terms if the proposed language were taken into
effect. He stated that the largest difference is that there
would not be a multi-year contract happening again. He
acknowledged that some terms are more complicated than
others, which will create problems with the Legislature only
meeting once a year. He believed that it would force many
of the contracts to go unaddressed for an additional year or
could force the Legislature into a Special Session. Senator
Kelly replied that if the proposed legislation went into
effect, the Legislature would not have to refund a multi-
year contract every year. The bill does not identify that.
Representative J. Davies clarified that the Legislature has
the option to not fund every year. He acknowledged that was
language was clear and that it would remain clear given the
status quo. He pointed out that in multi-year contracts,
the Unions would have to agree to take the non-monetary
terms for the three years whether or not the monetary terms
are funded. If the Unions were forced to accept that, the
Legislature would effectively be taking away their right to
strike on those issues. Senator Kelly disagreed that they
would be giving up their right to strike.
Co-Chair Mulder did not see the point of why the Unions
would go only to the single year contracts. He argued that
non-monetary terms are questionable. Going from a sick leave
to a cash benefit, is a monetary term. He thought that the
amended language would "throw the bone" to the Unions.
Representative J. Davies countered that the Unions had
testified that they would not go for a multi-year contract.
Senator Kelly stated that the contracts are currently all on
the same cycle. He believed that was good. He pointed out
that they are three-year contracts which will all come up
for renegotiation at the same time. Now all twelve public
employee contracts are on the same cycle. Each contract
contains different divisions and each division was written
by Unions not the Administration.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be good public policy to
allow the non-monetary terms to take effect in a contract,
if the monetary terms had been rejected. Representative J.
Davies suggested whatever moves forward should be determined
by the negotiated process with the exception, that the
Legislature has the right to define what is monetary and
what is non-monetary.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that a definition of
monetary terms had been presented. He noted that Senator
Kelly was willing to consider new language. Senator Kelly
commented that change would be in lieu of only Section 1,
which would then solve the University's problems.
Senator Kelly pointed out that the discrepancy, which exists
between the employee numbers, submitted by the Unions and
those of the Administration. He advised that in the non-
monetary contracts, the cash buy out provision was most
perplexing. He noted that there are twenty-six employees
that have more than 2,000 hours of sick leave. He
reiterated that the cash-out provision would be costly.
Representative Williams questioned the circumstances
associated with the non-Union employee and how the contracts
would affect them. Co-Chair Mulder replied that would be a
non-monetary term. Representative Williams reiterated the
circumstance of the employer paying sick leave rather than
training an additional employee.
Senator Kelly agreed that is a value, but that the cost
surpasses that value. The reserve would be used for all
State employees.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. [Copy
on File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Phillips recommended that the wording be
worked out in Committee before submitting it to the House
Floor. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that it is scheduled
for the House Floor today. Representative J. Davies
observed that if the amendment has the support the
leadership and the House Finance Committee, it would be
accepted on the House Floor.
Representative Grussendorf stated that without the
amendment, there would not be multi-year contracts. The
idea of 12 contracts coming up for renegotiations every
three years would be too much. He preferred that the
contracts be staggered so that there could be several Unions
settled. He reiterated that if all 12 contracts are up for
renegotiation and several are not happy, it would present a
difficult situation. Currently, they stagger in, leaving a
core that has approved contracts. If they were addressed
all at the same time, it could be a nightmare to public
services.
Representative Williams spoke to the cost of negotiations
for 12 multi-ear contracts.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf, Moses, Williams,
Austerman
OPPOSED: G. Davis, Foster, Phillips, Bunde,
Therriault. Mulder
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 269 (RLS)am out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Grussendorf
OBJECTED, stating that the additional work should be
addressed in the House Finance Committee and not on the
House Floor.
Representative Williams also OBJECTED to undertaking the
work on the House Floor. Representative Austerman echoed
comments of the Representative Williams. He expected to see
the amendment be clarified.
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his MOTION to MOVE the bill from
Committee.
CSSB 269(RLS) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 366
An Act relating to the rights of crime victims, the
crime of violating a protective order or injunction,
mitigating factors in sentencing for an offense, and
the return of certain seized property to victims;
expanding the scope of the prohibition of compromise
based on civil remedy of misdemeanor crimes involving
domestic violence; amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and
17, Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and
Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that HB 366 deals with
victims' rights. It does not adopt any major changes in the
law, but does adopt changes that are important to victims'
suffering the circumstances which the bill addresses. The
bill does four things:
? Allows a mitigated presumptive sentence for speedy no
contest or guilty pleas;
? Simplifies procedures for victims to recover stolen
property;
? Establishes a crime for violating protective
injunctions in child in need of aid cases;
? Extends current disallowance of civil compromise in
some domestic violence cases to all domestic violence
cases.
Ms. Carpeneti noted that a court can not issue an injunction
for a child in need of aid case unless it makes a finding
that the individual has abused the child physically or
sexually.
Representative G. Davis stated that portion concerned him
given the "subjective present danger". Ms. Carpeneti
explained that would not be affected in this bill. Co-Chair
Therriault clarified that on Page 2, new language was being
added which was a reference to the domestic violence
section. Ms. Carpeneti added that was a provision contained
in Title 11,which makes it a crime to violate a domestic
violence protective order.
Co-Chair Mulder commented that Section 3 was a different
focus from the rest of the bill. Ms. Carpeneti replied that
Section 3 deals with victims of property crimes. It provides
a simplified procedure for getting the property back. That
section addresses only those cases where the property is in
the possession of the law enforcement. The language provides
for a simplified procedure. It would allow the pawnbroker
to have their say and due process and the right to present
his or her case.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how the court would make a decision
involving the pawnbroker. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the
owner of the property has a higher interest than the
pawnbroker. Co-Chair Therriault interjected that "victims'
rights" brings the bill together.
Ms. Carpeneti added that the bill would adopt as a statutory
mitigator, if the defendant acted after being charged with a
crime, to alleviate the effect of the crime on the victim,
by pleading guilty within 30 days of the charges. The
mitigator would have already been recognized by the Court of
Appeals as a non-statutory mitigator. There is a provision
in law which allows for civil compromise of certain
misdemeanor charges. Right now, the law allows civil
compromise but it does not allow it in about 98% of the
domestic violence cases. The new language would make that
clear.
Representative G. Davis referenced the "mitigating"
stipulation. He asked if the judge would have the option of
reducing the mandatory sentence. Ms. Carpeneti responded
that mitigatory sentencing applies to presumptive
sentencing. That would apply to first time classified
felonies, first time unclassified felonies and second time
felonies.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced the Department of Law's,
Public Defender fiscal note. He believed that there would
be less work for the mitigator. Ms. Carpeneti commented
that she did not understand the new roll of the mitigator
position, which is being requested. She stated that law
currently allows for a civil compromise and admitted that
this request would be minor change to current law. Ms.
Carpeneti added that a court would have to approve a civil
compromise, regardless.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, 1-
GH2024\A.1, Luckhaupt, 3/28/00. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair
Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative J. Davies explained that the Council on
Domestic Violence had submitted the amendment. The
amendment speaks to a time when a person commits a crime,
violating a protective order. The intent of the amendment
would be to relax the requirement that the order needs to be
filed. Given that, if there was a valid protective order
issued in another state, it would provide that same standard
in Alaska. At this time, filing could be an issue. The
amendment would fit under the order of protecting victims of
crime.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if this concern had been presented to
the Department before this meeting. Ms. Carpeneti clarified
that it had not. Co-Chair Therriault asked if there was a
Department position on the amendment. Ms. Carpeneti stated
that philosophically, it would be a good idea, however, the
civil provision of the domestic violence law provides that a
protective order from another state has to be filed to be
enforced civilly. By allowing it to be criminal would
present an anomaly in law which needs to be fixed. She
noted that the federal government does not require filing of
protective orders for them to be enforced.
Representative G. Davis asked if Alaska was more stringent
than other states. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the way the
amendment was written, it requires protective orders. In
order for it to be a violation of crime, it would have to
come under the statutes.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 87, Side 2).
Co-Chair Mulder stated that ultimately, the victim would
have to have contact with the enforcement agency at some
point. Otherwise, they would have false protection. Ms.
Carpeneti commented that a problem could result if someone
came to our State and did not know that they had to file a
protective order or did not have time to file it before they
were victimized.
Representative Phillips asked why the amendment was not
considered when the bill was drafted or discussed in the
House Judiciary Committee.
LAUREE HOGONIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT (ANDVSA), JUNEAU, explained that
ANDVSA was not aware that out-of-state orders could not be
prosecuted until ten days ago. This concern came up at a
national meeting, as an active piece of law right now,
enforcing out-of-state protective orders across the nation.
The discussion came up about prosecuting the out-of-state
orders. It had been left out of this area of protective
orders issued from other states. This could happen because
the victim was not familiar with the Alaska Statute or
because in several other states, filing is not a
requirement. When this came to the attention of the ANDVSA
staff, Ms. Hogonin noted that she spoke with Ms. Carpeneti
and Representative J. Davies to help fix the problem.
Representative Phillips asked if the Alaska orders include a
phrase noting that if you transfer out of the state, you
must make contact with the public safety officers of the
state that you are going to. Ms. Hogonin replied that does
not happen because there are two functions at looking at
protective orders with full faith and credit. The issuing
state is responsible for determining who is protected, the
terms and conditions of the order and how long that order is
in effect. The enforcing state is responsible for how that
order is enforced, the arresting authority of responding to
it, and the notification and penalty of procedures. It
would not be necessary or practical for the Alaska order to
indicate that you have to contact law enforcement or the
court in the state you are moving to as that may not be the
law for that state which may not require filing.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that, AS 18.66.140 would require a
change in order to comply with the need. She acknowledged
that the amendment could fit under the content of the
proposed bill.
Ms. Hogonin stated that there is work being done by two
different national groups in the process of developing a
model code for enforcement of protective orders, one through
the United States Attorney General and the other through the
Department of Justice. She noted that this would be an
opportunity for Alaska to include a tool to take care of
situations so to have a valid protective order from another
state for those victims who either don't know that they are
suppose to file or have not had the opportunity to file. If
they had a confrontation, inclusion of this language would
allow for a prosecution if they were violated.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there should be a fiscal note
submitted by Department of Public Safety.
HB 366 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 A.M.
H.F.C. 9 3/29/00am
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|