Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/01/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 1, 2007
1:43 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:43:05 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras; Emily Stancliff, Staff,
Representative Jay Ramras
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Andy Harrington, Executive Director, Alaska Legal Services
SUMMARY
HB 76 An Act relating to the creation of a civil legal
services fund.
CS HB 76 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1
by the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
An Act relating to the creation of a civil legal
services fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, SPONSOR, noted that his staff,
Emily Stancliff, would be presenting the legislation to the
Committee.
1:44:30 PM
EMILY STANCLIFF, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, explained
that HB 76 was designed to help fund civil legal services
for low-income Alaskans, accomplished by creating a Civil
Legal Services Account funded by provisions required under
AS 09.17.020(j). Alaska Statutes require that 50% of any
punitive damage awards that go to the State be deposited
into the General Fund. Each legislature has the power to
appropriate those funds into such a place.
Ms. Stancliff added, civil legal needs of low-income
Alaskans are no different from others. Without the aide of
non-profit organizations, indigent families could loose
their homes, jobs, income, medical coverage and rights to be
free from domestic violence. Adequate representation for
low-income Alaskans is necessary to protect a guarantee to
"equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law"
as declared by the Alaska Constitution. Lack of a legal
representative in such cases requires more judicial time,
which can result in postponement of other legal matters and
places judges in the position of offering legal advice to
the unrepresented.
The Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) was established
in 1966 in order to address civil legal needs of low-income
Alaskans. ALSC is not a statewide agency, but a charitable
non-profit organization whose funding comes from a
combination of State, federal and private sources. Over the
past several years, the funding has dwindled.
Appropriations from the State were once as high as $1.2
million dollars a year; the last appropriation, made in FY04
was $125 thousand dollars. HB 76 aims to address the
financial needs of agencies such as the ALSC to create equal
access to the justice system for low-income Alaskans and to
bridge that State funding gap.
1:45:40 PM
Representative Ramras added that the bill is similar to one
th
introduced in the 24 Legislature through the Chairs of both
the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. He noted the
executive director for Alaska Legal Services would testify
on the bill. Currently, ALSC receives funds from the
Anchorage Municipality, the Fairbanks North Star Borough and
federal funding. ALSC would appreciate funding from the
Alaska Court System punitive damage awards.
Representative Ramras encouraged passage of the bill,
recommending that it will provide voice to the State's
needy.
1:48:43 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze referenced the handouts, stating that no
handout should be distributed to the Committee unless the
source is noted. (Copy on File).
Representative Gara replied he had requested distribution of
the handout; he was not aware of correct Committee protocol
for distributing back-up materials. Vice Chair Stoltze
explained that reference is normal Committee policy.
1:50:59 PM
ANDY HARRINGTON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE,
expounded that many calls received by the ALSC result from
problems with federal agencies or domestic violence. Often
times, laws exist on the books, protecting people from
injuries suffered, although not involving a criminal case,
but having their rights vindicated. Many people do not have
adequate cash to hire a private attorney and then turn to
ALSC.
Mr. Harrington pointed out that ALSC recruits as many young
attorneys as possible, who barely make minimum wage in order
to get the experience needed to handle cases. ALSC recruits
private bar attorneys, willing to volunteer their time to
represent low income people on civil matters. Most work
done through ALSC is in the Court and involves State law,
while a small proportion involves federal agencies. He
reiterated most of the time is spent in the State Court.
The majority of funding originates from federal sources,
some from municipal or regional Native nonprofits. Over the
years, State funding has drastically declined.
Mr. Harrington observed benefits to both the community &
constituents, involving such legal claims. He agreed that
those attempting to represent themselves, slow down the
legal system and make it more difficult for Court judges.
1:55:34 PM
Mr. Harrington reiterated, funding to ALSC promotes
efficiency of the overall Court system and can prevent
certain cases from "blowing up". ALSC provides a more
efficient way to process those cases.
He acknowledged that the funding concept is creative, using
the funding share from punitive damage cases. Poor people
do not have the expertise or time to handle their own cases;
they struggle to just stay alive. Providing funding to
promote equal access to the civil justice system, keeps with
the Alaska State Constitution.
1:56:41 PM
Representative Gara inquired if a stable funding source
would be more preferable to the proposed legislation. Mr.
Harrington acknowledged that would be preferable; stability
is always important.
Representative Gara asked how "spotty" funding would be
handled within that agency. Mr. Harrington understood that
the proposed funding would be a "bit of a roller coaster
ride". The agency will attempt to use an averaging
approach, looking at projected revenue and gauging budgets
based on that, so that during the "years of plenty", it
would be adjusted for those projected lean years. He
reiterated that he would prefer a stable amount year after
year; however, it is currently zero and anything helps.
1:59:15 PM
Representative Gara pointed out the distributed handout,
which indicates dollars since 2000 from the proposed funding
source. He stated that the law which created the fund
happened in 1997. Since that time, there have been three
punitive damage shares resulting in verdicts recovering
during civil cases. Since July 2005, the State has only
collected a total of $333 dollars; in January 2005, the
State received $300 thousand dollars. He summarized the
handout.
2:00:36 PM
Representative Nelson noted that the justice system is
"finely tuned". Often times, the State spends more funding
on fighting crime than offering adequate representation for
going to court. She asked about increased spending on the
"law and order" side of the budget.
Representative Ramras explained that the legislation
identifies only civil services - no criminal violations.
Mr. Harrington commented on the type of cases that would be
addressed through the proposed legislation. The Public
Defenders Office will continue to handle criminal
proceedings. The largest categories of civil cases are
those involving custody disputes and domestic violence;
there are some adoption cases and child-support concerns,
which are pro bono contingency cases for low-income people.
Some housing cases involve foreclosure and federal benefit
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. He summarized that
the majority of cases addressed by ALSC:
· Housing
· Consumer health
· Domestic relations involving domestic violence
2:04:57 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze inquired if illegal immigrants had been
represented by ALSC. Mr. Harrington replied they do not
represent un-documented citizens with one minor exception.
ALSC is governed by regulations, resulting from the need to
get federal funding. There are several categories not
handled:
· Incarcerated
· Class action suits
· Undocumented aliens - precluded from defending against
a conviction if it were based on a drug related
criminal conviction
Mr. Harrington pointed out the exception for representing
undocumented aliens is if there were a domestic violence
situation, the ALSC could provide assistance. There is a
separate group providing such service, the Alaska
Immigration Justice Program, providing services, not using
income guidelines.
2:06:56 PM
Representative Gara asked if in the domestic violence &
child custody cases, ALSC mostly represents people having
custody problems arising out of domestic violence. He
assumed that only victims were represented in such cases.
Mr. Harrington stated that ALSC has a policy of only
representing domestic violence victims. However, there are
two sides to every story and it has occupied they have
represented the more abusive person. That is not the
policy. There is an Alaskan Supreme Court ruling, which
clarifies that if ALSC is representing one parent in a
custody dispute, the Court system has the obligation to
appoint an attorney to the other parent. In a custody
dispute, there is a conflict precluding representation of
the other parent; however, the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) can represent the other parent.
2:08:48 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked the number of cases that deal with
domestic violence or child custody. Mr. Harrington replied
that would depend on which office was being referenced.
Currently, there are 8 offices around the State; breakdowns
vary from area to area. Close to ½ of all cases involve
some kind of a domestic relation matters. Out of that
number, 60-75% involves some measure of abuse or violence.
2:10:35 PM
Co Chair Chenault asked to speak with Mr. Harrington
privately, regarding the abuse concern.
Representative Ramras pointed out that ALSC serves with
about 4,400 cases per year, even given their current
budgeting program.
Vice Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
2:12:31 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, 25-
LS0349\M.1, Bailey, 2/01/07. Representative Hawker
OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained Amendment #1, which he
believed is a value judgment regarding free legal services
for people who have not committed a crime. He emphasized
that representation and access to justice is an important
thing. He endorsed a stable funding source, pointing out
that General Fund was a stable funding source until Governor
Murkowski vetoed it. He knew that ALSC would prefer an
annual appropriation rather than the inconsistent proposed
agency funding.
Representative Gara advised that the funding proposed is
inconsistent and would provide only 50% punitive damage
support, costs, which are rarely paid and when such cases
are settled, the plaintiff does not want the money to go to
punitive damages award. The one thing that parties in a
lawsuit agree upon is that they do not want any documents
claiming they had a case involving punitive damages. The
defendants claim that all settlement monies are compensatory
damages. Again, a plaintiff would not want 50% to go to
that fund as that is the one thing litigants agree upon,
that is when a case is settled, it is indicated that the
settlement is for compensatory damages. Rarely does money
come into that fund for future use.
Representative Gara pointed out that Amendment 1 indicates
the Access to Justice Task Force. Legal Service funding has
dwindled on both the federal and State level. He
recommended taking a portion of court filing fees and
placing that into a legal services fund, providing a stable
source of funding. That is what Amendment 1 offers.
2:19:08 PM
Representative Ramras opposed Amendment 1, stating that it
would be considered a taxing fee, which he does not support.
In spite of funding obstacles, ALSC has continued to serve
Alaskans.
Representative Hawker emphasized that the amendment raises a
fundamental problem in circumventing the Alaska State
Constitution, a dedication of funds prohibition. The intent
of the Constitutional delegates was to prohibit earmarking
revenues as by doing that, the Legislature looses its future
ability to match expenditures with public needs as
circumstances change from year to year.
Representative Hawker continued, the critical language cites
the Constitutional Convention regarding the "evil" of
allocating such funds and by doing that, neither the
governor nor the legislature would maintain control of the
finances for the State. He then extended that concern to
the entire premise of the bill.
2:24:03 PM
Representative Hawker continued his discussion on the
dedication of "other funds", circumventing the
Constitutional prohibition against the dedication of funds.
He reiterated concern with such a move, stating he could not
support the amendment. Vice Chair Meyer agreed.
Representative Crawford questioned if Representative Hawker
was opposed to the bill or the amendment. Representative
Hawker interjected a "point of order" regarding such an
inquiry not moving through the Committee Chair. Co-Chair
Meyer remarked that questions should always move through the
Committee Chair. Representative Crawford reiterated his
question to Co-Chair Meyer regarding Representative Hawker's
opposition to both the bill and the amendment and asked
clarification. Vice Chair Meyer requested that Committee
members keep all comments on only Amendment 1.
2:28:11 PM
Representative Gara clarified that there was nothing in the
bill or the amendment, which violates the Alaska State
Constitution. He referenced the FY08 proposed budget, which
places money into funding appropriations from sources
similar to that recommended by Amendment 1. He thought that
not violating the dedicated funds prohibition would be
establishing an account and calling it a fund. Money would
then be placed into that fund, but would not become a
dedicated fund, because the Legislature would not be
directed toward spending it. He agreed with Representative
Hawker, however, advised that answer to the concern would be
for the Legislature to take more control over the issue and
fund it through the General Fund.
Representative Gara added that he intended to follow
Amendment 1, with a conceptual amendment, which would delete
the entire bill and insert a $250 thousand dollar General
Fund appropriation.
Vice Chair Meyer recommended that the Committee not be
"writing the budget" at this time and asked that such an
amendment be held and offered during the budget-making
process. He requested that the Committee stay on discussion
of Amendment 1.
2:30:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Nelson
OPPOSED: Crawford, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Kelly,
Stoltze, Thomas, Meyer, Chenault
The MOTION FAILED (2-9).
2:31:07 PM
Vice Chair Meyer requested that Representative Gara "save"
the proposed Amendment 2, discussing it during the
subcommittee process. Representative Gara stated he would
be willing to work with the Committee but that he was
worried with letting the opportunity pass from Committee for
something as important as the Alaska Legal Services
Corporation. Co-Chair Meyer reiterated, it could be
addressed during the subcommittee process.
Representative Hawker pointed out that HB 76 is a policy
bill, not an appropriation bill. He did not think that
House Rules allow for a policy bill being changed to an
appropriation bill through an amendment. Co-Chair Meyer
agreed.
Representative Joule argued in support for the concept being
proposed in conceptual Amendment 2 & encouraged the process.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
Representative Gara offered to HOLD conceptual Amendment 2.
2:34:23 PM
Representative Hawker questioned the fiscal impact regarding
funds being transferred. Ms. Stancliff acknowledged that
the Sponsor has no idea of what can be expected year to year
through the proposed funding. Mr. Harrington agreed with
Representative Gara's estimations that the agency could
receive anywhere between $0 - $300 thousand dollars.
Representative Hawker spoke against "earmarking" funds, and
questioned the overall effectiveness of the proposed
legislation. He acknowledged the intent, stressing the
small amount of enforcement possibility.
Representative Gara reiterated his support for a "flat"
funding appropriation to the Alaska Legal Services
Corporation.
Representative Kelly interjected comments that the
appropriation process is a "judgment call" and that there
were differing opinions regarding funding.
Representative Foster MOVED TO REPORT CS HB 76 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 76 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department
of Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|