Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
10/31/2017 01:00 PM House FINANCE
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB54 | |
| Presentation: Department of Law | |
| Presentation: Crimes Known to Police (alaska): Statewide Rates, by Month: 2014-2016 - Uaa Justice Center | |
| Presentation: Alcohol Safety Action Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 31, 2017
1:04 p.m.
1:04:28 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Randall Burns, Director, Division of Behavioral Health,
Department of Health and Social Services; Quinlan Steiner,
Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General,
Department of Law; John Skidmore, Division Director,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Representative Bryce
Edgmon; Representative Zack Fansler; Representative Andy
Josephson; Representative Ivy Spohnholz; Representative Sam
Kito; Representative Harriet Drummond.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brad Myrstol PhD, Associate Professor and Interim Director,
UAA Justice Center; Tony Piper, Manager, Alcohol Safety
Action Program, Department of Health and Social Services.
SUMMARY
SB 54 CRIME AND SENTENCING
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
PRESENTATION: CRIMES KNOWN TO POLICE (ALASKA): STATEWIDE
RATES, BY MONTH: 2014-2016 - UAA JUSTICE CENTER
PRESENTATION: ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
imprisonment; relating to parole; relating to
probation; relating to driving without a license;
relating to the pretrial services program; and
providing for an effective date."
1:05:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day and
indicated that amendments for SB 54 were due by 5:00 p.m.
the following day. He recognized Representatives Bryce
Edgmon, Zack Fansler, and Andy Josephson in the audience.
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1:05:57 PM
JAHNA LINDEMUTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced the PowerPoint Presentation: "Department of Law:
House Finance Committee" (copy on file). She remarked that
much of what the legislature was doing at present was
trying to figure out the impacts of SB 91 [justice reform
legislation passed in 2015] on crime versus other issues
including budget cuts and other causes of crime. She would
be discussing the Department of Law's (DOL) budget and the
impacts of safety.
Attorney General Lindemuth provided background on the
genesis of SB 54. She referenced comments that the bill had
been recommended by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
(ACJC), which was true; however, 90 percent of the contents
of the bill as passed by the Senate were ideas or concepts
brought to the commission by DOL and the Department of
Public Safety (DPS). She detailed that one year earlier the
commission had heard substantial testimony from law
enforcement, prosecutors, and the public about the impacts
of crime (especially shop lifting and property crimes). She
furthered that DOL had invited its line prosecutors to
testify to the commission. Additionally, law enforcement
including the Anchorage Police Department (APD) had
testified as well. Subsequently, she had worked with Walt
Monegan, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety and John
Skidmore, Division Director, Criminal Division, Department
of Law to identify changes they believed were necessary to
address the unintended consequences of SB 91. She
highlighted three primary issues having unintended
consequences: 1) probation only for a Class C felony [no
jail time]; 2) recidivist theft; and 3) violations of
conditions of release.
Attorney General Lindemuth shared that DOL had compiled a
memorandum (in January 2017, which was included in House
Judiciary Committee materials) to the commission that
outlined its recommended changes. She acknowledged there
had been other changes outside of those recommended by DOL
and DPS. She believed it was important to recognize that
the department had identified the items as changes that
were needed. She offered that the administration supported
the version of SB 54 passed by the Senate. The department
believed it provided the legislative fix needed. She
clarified that it did not mean SB 54 provided the only fix
to SB 91 that would be needed.
Attorney General Lindemuth commented that she was committed
to the process of bringing everyone (i.e. law enforcement,
DPS, the Court System, and other) to the table with their
ideas. She remarked that she was also a member of ACJC. She
referenced a number of ideas brought forward in the House
Judiciary Committee the previous week. She believed many of
the ideas were worth debating and bringing to the
commission for vetting before they came back to the
legislature for implementation. She furthered that from the
public's perspective it was easy to see that criminal
justice reform had taken place and there had been public
outcry laying blame on SB 91. She continued that some of
the blame had resulted in SB 54 changes, but much of the
blame was based on uninformed public perception.
Attorney General Lindemuth relayed that budget effects on
DOL had impacted its ability to provide core services
including the prosecution of crime and the protection of
children. For example, the department had heard significant
outcry about vehicle theft. The department believed SB 54
fixed the legislative piece and gave courts the discretion
to provide some jailtime if appropriate for vehicle theft.
She elaborated that vehicle theft was a Class C felony with
a sentence of 0 to 1 year. Due to budget cuts the district
attorneys had to prioritize crimes. She furthered that
violent crimes or a person offense took higher priority
than property crimes. She shared that former district
attorney Clint Campion had mentioned in talks to community
councils that the Anchorage DAs were not able to prioritize
vehicle thefts at present given the record number of
homicides the community had experienced in the past two
years (in addition to other violent crimes taking place).
Attorney General Lindemuth believed everyone agreed there
had to be a consequence to crime in order to avoid
incentivizing criminals. The department would like to do
more with vehicle theft - even under the 0 to 18-month
scheme under SB 91, those crimes were not getting as much
attention as they would have if the department had
sufficient prosecutors. She addressed the presentation and
relayed that except for one slide, it was from the past
February and March when it had been given to the House
Finance subcommittee chaired by Representative Grenn. She
noted that the presentation had also been given to the
House Judiciary Committee several weeks back.
1:14:20 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth turned to slide 2: "Department
of Law's Share of Total Agency Operations (GF Only)." The
slide included Civil and Criminal Divisions. Out of the
department's $49 million undesignated general fund (UGF)
budget for FY 18, approximately $27 million went to the
Criminal Division and $19 million went to the Civil
Division. The Civil Division was half funded with general
funds and the remainder was funded with interagency
receipts. Overall, in FY 13 (one of the higher years shown
on the chart) the department had up to 541 people; as of
the past March, the number of employees was down to 455.
There were approximately 130 civil attorneys and 106
criminal attorneys. Beginning in FY 12 there had been a
significant reduction in the department's budget and number
of employees. She pointed to a horizontal black line
showing the department's FY 18 budget was at FY 08 level
adjusted for inflation. She detailed DOL was down 43
positions compared to FY 08.
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged Representatives Ivy Spohnholz
and Sam Kito in the audience.
1:16:52 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the breakdown of civil and
criminal attorneys. Attorney General Lindemuth responded
that as of March 2017 there were 130 civil attorneys and
106 criminal attorneys.
Representative Wilson asked where the 454 number had come
from. Attorney General Lindemuth replied the 455 figure
included staff and paralegals.
Attorney General Lindemuth reviewed slide 3: "Change in GF
Budget FY14-FY18." She shared that the Civil Division
budget had decreased 32 percent from FY 14 to FY 18 and the
Criminal Division budget had decreased by 10.3 percent
during the same period. She specified the number included
one prosecutor position added by the legislature in 2017.
She added she was comfortable using March numbers because
the department's budget had been flat except for the
addition of one additional prosecutor. Overall, there was a
21 percent decrease from FY 14 including both divisions.
Additionally, the department was down 80 positions since FY
14.
Attorney General Lindemuth discussed slide 4: "FY14-FY17
Criminal Budget." There had been 128 attorneys in the
Criminal Division; the number was currently 106. She
specified that 42 positions had been lost in the Criminal
Division between FY 14 and FY 17.
1:18:56 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth reviewed the graphs on slide 5.
She had communicated to the legislative budget subcommittee
the prior session that too much had been cut from the
department's budget. The slide contained graphs based on a
Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics report. She shared
that every dollar cut impacted the services the department
was able to provide. She explained that at the same time as
budget cuts had occurred, crime statistics in Alaska had
skyrocketed. There had been an increase over the years, but
the FY 15 and FY 16 numbers were significantly higher. She
noted the trend was especially true for violent crime. She
mentioned the department had submitted the first 30 pages
of the UCR to the committee ("Crime in Alaska"). The
excerpt was a summary of the 580-page report on crime
statistics in recent years.
Attorney General Lindemuth reiterated that crime had been
increasing over the past two years - beginning prior to the
passage of SB 91. She detailed that most of the components
of SB 91 had gone into effect in July 2016. She reasoned
that for 2015 and the first half of 2016 it was obvious the
increases in crime were unrelated to SB 91. She believed
the opioid crisis had a major impact on the increase in
crime. She referenced a high number of deaths and
significant increases in the number of child protection
cases over the last two years. Due to budget cuts and an
increase in crime in recent years the department was faced
with prioritizing crime; therefore, violent and more
serious crimes received the most attention. She explained
that the department was faced with declining more cases
that would have otherwise been prosecuted due to a lack in
resources.
1:22:52 PM
Vice-Chair Gara referred to slide 5. He asked about the
2016 statistics and wondered if there was any way to
determine which part of the year the crimes occurred.
Attorney General Lindemuth reported that the charts showed
summary data, but the 30-page UCR summary included a month-
by-month analysis.
1:23:43 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth continued to slide 6: "Three
main buckets for general fund spending." She reported that
there were three main buckets for General Fund spending at
DOL including, prosecuting crime, protecting children, and
statehood and revenue protection. Cuts to the department's
budget impacted the three areas. She detailed that the
statehood and revenue protection component brought revenue
into the state. She specified that one-third of the Civil
Division budget went towards protecting children. She
explained that the Criminal Division budget and a
significant portion of the Civil Division budget went to
public safety.
Attorney General Lindemuth advanced to slide 7 titled
"Protecting Children," showing the number of child abuse
reports received annually. The process began with the
Office of Children's Services (OCS), but a DOL attorney
became involved in the court process if a child needed to
be removed from a home (a judge was required to make the
decision). She highlighted slide 8: "Impacts of Budget Cuts
on Services." She reported there had been significant
increases in child protection cases over the past two
years. She communicated that currently the department had
104 child protection cases per attorney. The recommended
number was 60 per attorney.
Attorney General Lindemuth scrolled to slide 9: "Criminal
Division." She pointed out that Anchorage and Juneau had
municipal attorneys to prosecute misdemeanors; however, the
department was responsible for prosecution of crimes in all
other locations statewide. The department was also
responsible for the prosecution of felonies statewide
including Juneau and Anchorage.
1:26:23 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth turned to slide 10: "Impacts of
Budget Cuts on Services." She explained that the slide
addressed capacity to prosecute. The department had done a
comparison between the number of felony and misdemeanor
cases in 2013 and 2016. In 2013 the department had the
ability to prosecute a higher number of cases due to its
number of attorneys. As positions had been lost and the
department was faced with prioritizing felony crimes over
misdemeanors, the capacity to prosecute misdemeanors was
down significantly. She noted that the department had only
cut felony prosecutions by 3 percent. She explained that
the past spring she had struggled with determining whether
crime was at a level where the department would do the
prosecutions if it had the same level of staff as in 2013.
The UCR showed that with crime increases in 2015 and 2016,
current crime was at a higher level than in 2013. She
surmised there were good cases that the department would
prosecute if it had staffing levels comparable to 2013.
Attorney General Lindemuth reported on the types of cases
DOL was prosecuting. She referenced a statement made the
previous day that felony drug cases had decreased from FY
14 to FY 17, which she believed made sense with criminal
justice reform. She furthered that those declining cases
had been backfilled by other more serious felonies. The
homicide cases filed FY 17 were double the amount filed in
FY 14. The number of felony assaults had increased by 26
percent since FY 14 and robbery cases had increased by 25
percent. She elaborated that sexual assault cases felony
property cases had also increased. More and more serious
crime was being prosecuted at the expense of the lower-
level nonviolent and/or misdemeanor cases. She continued
that the department was prosecuting the same or slightly
fewer cases than in the past, but the crimes involved more
serious offenders. Consequently, more people would be put
in jail for longer periods of time. She explained that the
dynamic may not result in the types of savings or reduction
in prison bed usage given that the more serious offenses
were running through the criminal justice system. She spoke
to the importance of understanding how budget cuts had
impacted crime.
1:30:36 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the LFD 10-year
overview on slide 2. He mentioned having been a member of
the House Resources Committee and he pointed out that
during the high budget years of FY 11 through FY 14 the
state had been spending substantial funds on statehood
defense and on Endangered Species Act (ESA) defense. He
asked if that was where the cut was reflected.
Attorney General Lindemuth did not have the number of those
types of cases currently compared to 2013. The department
was still conducting a significant number of ESA and
statehood defense-type cases. Overall the cuts from FY 14
to FY 18 had impacted the Civil Division by 32 percent,
which impacted those kinds of cases. She offered to follow
up with additional numbers regarding the Civil Division.
She cited the significant decrease to the department's
Consumer Protection Division as an example.
Representative Kawasaki referenced testimony that the Civil
Division was useful for Child in Need of Aid (CINA) cases
and other. He requested a breakdown of the numbers. He
referenced the $19 million budget for the Civil Division
versus $27 million for the Criminal Division. He observed
there were more attorneys in the Civil Division. He asked
if it was because prosecutions were more costly.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded that slide 2 showed
General Fund only. She explained that a significant portion
of the department's budget came from interagency receipts.
She detailed there could be more attorneys in the Civil
Division funded by sources other than UGF.
1:33:03 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked who made the decisions about
how to allocate the money between the two divisions. He
asked how the department decided to allocate more money to
the Criminal Division specifically for felony prosecutions.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that the legislature
allocated funding that was divided between the two
divisions. The department gave a presentation annually that
addressed the needs in different locations. She could not
personally move money between the divisions. She could move
funds within a division.
Representative Kawasaki clarified that the department
annually made a request to the governor indicating where
funds were needed. The legislature appropriated the funds.
He asked if his explanation was accurate.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that she had only been
through one budget cycle. She had recommended holding the
budget flat until a fiscal plan was developed, at which
point she would request additional funding.
Representative Grenn remarked that criminal caseloads far
exceeded the recommended ethical number. He believed it was
good for the public to hear what high caseloads did to an
attorney's effectiveness and how it impacted each case. He
noted there were more open homicide cases than the number
of prosecutors. He had the opportunity to sit in to see
what it took to build a case and how much attention was
required. He was interested in what high caseloads did to
retention.
Attorney General Lindemuth deferred to a colleague.
1:35:41 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIVISION DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that the department did not
have a hard and fast ethical number of caseloads, but it
had generally estimated that an attorney could handle 400
misdemeanors or about 100 felonies per year. He emphasized
that currently caseloads in multiple offices across the
state were exceeding that number of open cases. He
explained that it did not matter how many cases were
resolved because new cases came in and the department had
already tapped out at where the number should be for the
entire year. He spoke to the impact component of
Representative Grenn's question. He reflected on the number
of conversations he had with supervisors across the state
regarding health issues facing a number of the department's
employees. He could not definitively say the health
problems would not exist if the employees had less work,
but it caused him concern. He mentioned individuals with
heart problems and other general health issues. He
characterized the issue as very problematic.
Mr. Skidmore referenced his testimony from the previous day
regarding recruiting. He shared that when the department
attempted to recruit from the Lower 48, individuals had
applied and had decided to remain where they were after
talking with DOL. He explained caseloads had presented
challenges for the department related to recruiting. The
department was continuing to recruit and fill positions,
but the situation made it more difficult to recruit and
more difficult to recruit individuals with experience
instead of individuals new to the field. He reported that
it took between two to five years for a new prosecutor to
be trained, get comfortable with Alaska laws and the rules
of evidence, and trial skills to really be effective.
Individuals who had been with the department in the five to
ten-year range were truly effective and could handle the
caseloads.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the seriousness of the crime had
increased in cases accepted by the department. The
department had double the number of accepted homicide cases
at present compared to four years earlier. There had also
been an increase in felony assault and robbery cases.
Handling one of the more serious cases took much more time,
energy, and effort than it did to handle lower-level cases.
He had not determined a good way to quantify the trend, but
he emphasized that based on his 20 years of experience, it
did not take the same thing to handle a homicide case as it
did to handle an assault IV case, vehicle theft, or other
similar crime. The department was working to determine how
to quantify the situation to help the legislature and
public better understand.
1:39:33 PM
Representative Grenn referred to slide 10. He asked if a
person who committed a misdemeanor would likely be a repeat
offender.
Mr. Skidmore responded that it was not an easy yes or no
answer. A person's past behavior was frequently looked at
to help predict future conduct, but it did not mean that
just because a person had committed one crime that they
would commit numerous additional crimes.
Representative Grenn spoke about repeat offenders stealing
cars, shoplifting, and other. He asked that if recidivism
would be reduced if the state had the means to prosecute
more swiftly and effectively.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the question combined two
separate concepts. First, whether holding people
accountable via prosecution helped the overall crime rate.
He argued that it would for multiple reasons. Whether
holding people accountable via prosecution helped
recidivism was a different question. He explained that
recidivism was not about how many crimes occur.
Alternatively, recidivism is about a person who was
convicted for a second time for committing an offense. He
confirmed that recidivism reduction could help with the
crime rate.
Representative Grenn referenced data on slide 5 showing a
dramatic increase in violent crime from 2015 to 2016. He
asked how violent crime sentencing had changed with SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore answered that criminal justice reform had
adjusted presumptive sentencing ranges for all crimes
except sex offenses (the majority of sex offenses had been
placed in a subsection of statute that had not been
adjusted) and unclassified crimes such as murder (which did
not have a presumptive). All other A, B, or C crimes
[felonies] left in generic sentencing ranges had been
adjusted downward. Criminal justice reform had impacted all
crimes in the same way because the adjustments were not
based on violent and nonviolent crimes, but on adjusting A,
B, and C felonies. He reiterated the exceptions related to
sex offenses and unclassified felonies.
1:43:32 PM
Vice-Chair Gara had read in a newspaper recently that the
governor was recommending five additional prosecutors. He
believed the department was down 22 prosecutors since 2014.
He asked about what 5 additional prosecutors would do. He
stated it was a balancing act to try to provide adequate
public safety when the state had no money. He asked how 5
additional prosecutors would help the problem when the
department was down 22 prosecutors and crime was on the
rise.
Attorney General Lindemuth conceded that in a perfect world
the department would have the 22 prosecutors back. She
explained that it would take time to rebuild DOL. The
department had turnover annually and it would always be
recruiting for prosecutors. She had requested 5 prosecutors
in the current year because it was the number she thought
she could add to the department without impacting quality
the it was seeking. She planned to request an additional 5
positions annually in the coming years. She could not put
out a recruitment for 20 prosecutors for the current year
in addition to the positions that would see turnover. She
was concerned it would be more difficult to recruit for
rural positions if the department opened recruitment for 20
positions.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that murder was up substantially
since 2014. He was doubtful any perpetrators had gone to
the statute books before committing a crime to see what
their sentence would be; however, if they had looked they
would have discovered sentencing lengths had increased (and
murders had continued to rise regardless). General theft
appeared to have decreased month-by-month in 2016 even
after the passage of SB 91. In 2016 car theft had increased
in January, declined in the summer, and increased near the
end of the year. He asked if any correlation could be drawn
between the passage of SB 91 and crime rates.
1:46:59 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth remarked on the complexity of
the question. She remarked that Brad Myrstol with the
University of Alaska Anchorage would be available for
related questions later in the meeting. Overall the crime
rate [increase] had begun well before the passage of SB 91.
For the most part the changes in law were not attributable
to the increase in crime. Many of the fixes in SB 54
focused on recidivist theft (low-level theft) and on
vehicle theft (Class C felony). When she had looked at the
month-to-month data for motor vehicle theft and larceny it
appeared there had been a slight uptick after July 2016,
which would support the need for the recommended changes in
SB 54. However, Mr. Myrstol who is a statistician expert,
was not seeing those types of things.
1:48:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara observed that the UCR showed a decrease in
larceny theft offenses on a monthly basis after August
2016. The offenses had been on the rise in January and July
prior to the passage of SB 91.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that she did not believe
it was fair to compare June to December. There were
cyclical crime trends and experts would say there was
always more crime in the summer when school was out, people
were out camping, and other. She believed it was necessary
to look at the statistics for the first half of a year
compared to the second half or to the prior year.
Vice-Chair Gara mentioned that in the past (when the state
had not been in a budget deficit) if prosecutors were
added, the state recognized the need to add public
defenders and Office of Public Advocacy attorneys. He
assumed there would be a recommendation for additional
positions in these areas along with the request for the
additional prosecutor positions.
Attorney General Lindemuth pointed out that the Criminal
Division had been cut 10.5 percent since FY 14. She
believed the other public safety agencies had only been cut
3 to 4 percent in the same timeframe. She furthered that
the Office of Public Advocacy and the Public Defender
Agency had child protection cases they were also
considering. In order to make an apples-to-apples
comparison it would be necessary to consider cuts to child
protection. She believed the cuts at DOL had been deeper
than in other agencies.
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged Representative Harriet
Drummond in the audience.
1:50:40 PM
Representative Thompson referenced Mr. Skidmore's testimony
that DOL was having difficulty recruiting attorneys to fill
vacant positions. He asked how many Criminal Division
positions were currently funded in the budget.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the division had several open
recruitments. He approximated the number at about five -
some of the positions were staff and paralegal. He offered
to follow up with the information later that day.
Representative Thompson asked if there would be any benefit
to hiring paralegals to free up some attorney time.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the addition of paralegals and
law office assistants were critical positions working
alongside attorneys; any attorney position required support
positions. He continued that if an imbalance occurred it
meant starting to pay attorneys to do support staff
position work. He noted that while the work was extremely
important, it did not necessarily require the same level of
education and the positions were not on the same pay range
as an attorney. He confirmed it made sense to have things
balanced and it was one of the things the division had been
discussing.
Representative Thompson pointed to slide 10 and observed
that the capacity for DOL to prosecute misdemeanors was
down substantially. He asked if some of the cases were
picked up by the cities of Anchorage and Juneau.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that the city was doing
more prosecutions in that same timeframe, which helped with
the statistic on slide 10. She explained that the issue was
about the capacity to prosecute. She reported that if DOL
had the 22 prosecutors it would be prosecuting more crime
overall. She noted the division may not be the same - DOL
may be doing more felony prosecutions as it addressed the
record number of homicides over the past two years. She
detailed that the split may not be the same as the number
of felony versus misdemeanor cases prosecuted in 2013.
1:53:43 PM
Representative Thompson surmised the number of cases that
the department was not able to prosecute (reported on slide
10) were not all going unprosecuted.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered in the affirmative; the
city had been doing some of the misdemeanor prosecutions.
With crime increasing in 2015 and 2016, she was confident
the 22 positions would enable DOL to prosecute 6,800 more
misdemeanors and 187 more felonies. Or the number would be
split, she estimated the department would be prosecuting
400 to 500 more felonies and 4,000 more misdemeanors. The
crime was there to prosecute if DOL had the prosecutors.
Representative Ortiz returned to Attorney General
Lindemuth's original statement regarding staying committed
to the process. He asked if she had meant the process of
criminal justice reform.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded that she had been
speaking about the process of how additional changes to
criminal justice laws were evaluated. She had not meant
that there was something negative about criminal justice
reform as implemented. She had not been the attorney
general or part of the ACJC or when SB 91 had been
developed. She had started in the position in August 2016,
one month after SB 91 had gone into effect. She had been
part of ACJC for the past 15 months, which had regular
meetings at the commission and working group level
evaluating everything that was happening with the criminal
justice system. She elaborated that the commission had a
special meeting almost every other week on different issues
such as pretrial. The right people were at the table
(including heads of agencies, staff on the ground working
with the issues, courts) to have the discussion about what
laws need to be changed or further considered prior to
making recommendations to the legislature and/or where to
put additional funding for reinvestment. She stated that it
was a good process, which was good to keep in mind when
responding to the public outcry for something to be done
with crime.
1:56:38 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced Attorney General
Lindemuth's testimony about going back to the commission
before changes were made to SB 54. He believed she had
expressed her support for the bill. He asked if her
testimony pertained to the bill as passed by the Senate.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that the commission's
recommendation was slightly different from DOL's
recommendation. The Senate had made some changes to
strengthen a couple of issues DOL had identified. She
reported that DOL was comfortable with the Senate's version
of SB 54. An amendment had been made by the House Judiciary
Committee that included scheduling the drugs Pink and
Tramadol. She detailed it had come from pending legislation
the previous session, which the administration and DOL
supported. She believed it needed to happen at some point -
the department would be happy to have the provision pass as
part of SB 54.
Representative Ortiz asked if any changes made in the House
Judiciary Committee were of concern.
Attorney General Lindemuth recommended bringing the changes
to the commission for consideration the during the next
regular legislative session. She had some small concerns
about some of the changes and wanted further debate on some
of the other changes prior to making a recommendation to
the legislature.
Representative Ortiz referred to slide 6, which showed
different areas in DOL where funding was used. He asked for
further detail on statehood and revenue protection
including how the funding was spent.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that statehood and
revenue protection included R.S. 2477 cases where the
department was protecting state assets.
1:59:45 PM
Representative Grenn wanted to discuss feedback about
public education on SB 91 and SB 54. He remarked the
committee heard about misinformation during public
testimony and in budget subcommittees. He continued it was
not only the public that may not know what SB 91 did, but
also public safety stakeholders. He noted he was the one
committee member who had not been in the legislature during
the SB 91 debate. He detailed there had been much to catch
up on and new information he had learned. He believed that
when SB 91 passed the public had not known what the changes
were - some large and some small. He believed regardless of
a person's support or opposition to SB 91, there had been
significant misinformation. He hoped that if SB 54 passed
there would be coordination between departments and that
there would be efforts to do a better job getting factual
information to the public and those working in the criminal
justice system. He asked the department to comment on the
issue.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that it was a very good
point. Leading up to special session she had appeared on
numerous radio shows as had Mr. Skidmore and Commissioner
Monegan. She furthered that DOL was encouraging district
attorneys to attend community meetings to be more engaged
with the community regarding crime. She believed it was
very important to stay engaged with the public and to be
talking about the issues.
Co-Chair Seaton was interested in Attorney General
Lindemuth's introductory comments and presentation showing
that reductions to DOL had resulted in less prosecutions,
meaning people were not going through the system and were
probably committing repeat offenses. He referenced Attorney
General Lindemuth's testimony correlating the opioid crisis
with an increase in crime. He wondered if the department
had further data on the subject. He asked about her mention
of child protection cases. He asked if her statements about
opioid abuse and child protection cases had been related.
He asked Attorney General Lindemuth to repeat the
information.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded that the deaths
resulting from opioids and the increase in child protection
cases was evidence that opioids were driving crime. Opioid
deaths were only one snapshot about the number of users and
how the issue was impacting Alaskans generally. She
believed the increase in child protection cases in recent
years was being driven by the opioid epidemic. She
communicated that ACJC had included opioid deaths in its
annual report (page 48).
2:04:46 PM
Co-Chair Seaton expressed concerns about looking at the
seriousness of crimes, which would result in longer minimum
mandatory sentences and prison beds being occupied for
longer periods. He was concerned because savings for
reinvestment were anticipated to be generated from a
reduction in occupied prison beds. The idea was to use the
funds to thwart recidivism, provide treatment, and help
individuals to become productive members of society. He
wondered how keeping individuals in prison for longer
periods of time would impact the savings for reinvestment.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded that she could not
quantify the information during the meeting. She thought
there would still be savings overall, but not as
significant as what had initially been hoped for (given the
rise in crime in 2015 and 2016 and the seriousness of the
types of crimes going through the system). Her
understanding was at the time SB 91 passed about 41 percent
of the criminal population was pretrial. She pointed to the
new [Department of Corrections] Pretrial Division, the
addition of 60 new officers, and the removal of bail
restrictions that previously kept individuals in prison who
could not afford bail. She believed the items would result
in savings. She noted the pretrial component was scheduled
to be running in January [2018]. She reiterated there would
still be savings, but not as significant as hoped.
Co-Chair Seaton noted they were looking at allocating
savings into more productive efforts in the criminal
justice system. He asked how the reduction and anticipated
savings would be reflected in the fiscal notes. He surmised
they may be recommending further investment instead of
quite so much reinvestment. He asked for detail.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that DOL was not
submitting a fiscal note for SB 54. The department did not
anticipate being impacted by the bill. She believed others
prepared to testify could speak to the anticipated impact
on other departments.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that in order to have a
reinvestment strategy, the committee would need to know if
proposed amendments would reduce savings. He appreciated
testimony elucidating that an increase in prosecution of
violent crime meant longer jailtime, which may reduce
savings. He wanted the Department of Corrections (DOC) and
DPS to address the issue to understand the fiscal impact.
2:09:40 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that there was
discussion about giving some discretion back to judges for
Class C felonies and recidivist theft. For example, the
jailtime for Class C felonies would still be zero to 1
year. There were a number of felonies that would not see
jail time. She expected to see courts reserving jailtime
for more violent Class C felonies and crimes that could be
better addressed with jailtime. The prosecutors had
communicated it was difficult to incentivize people to take
a treatment option over jailtime, because residential
treatment was treated as incarceration for purposes of
sentencing. By authorizing zero to 1-year sentencing, the
department was hoping to put more people into treatment
programs and to incentivize them with deals as an
alternative to returning to a jail bed. There were many
unknowns around how the situation would play out in terms
of how many more people would be spending more time in
prisons.
Representative Wilson asked for clarification. She asked if
Attorney General Lindemuth was saying that SB 91 was about
pretrial and making changes so individuals were not sitting
in prison waiting for trial. She stated it had not been her
understanding.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied in the negative. She
clarified she had not been speaking about what SB 91 did
generally. She explained she had been responding to Co-
Chair Seaton's question about the department's expected
cost savings. Her point had been that a significant portion
of the population addressed by criminal justice reform was
pretrial. There were many other components of SB 91 that
had not been encapsulated in her answer to Co-Chair Seaton.
2:11:55 PM
Representative Wilson believed that SB 91 had been about
reducing recidivism. She assumed that if SB 91 was
successful, DOL would have fewer cases because there would
be a reduction in crimes committed by repeat offenders.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded that in the long-term
Representative Wilson was probably correct. Much of the
current discussion was about first-time offenses. Many of
the changes SB 54 was addressing pertained to how to handle
a first-time offense. She did not know the percentage of
repeat offenders currently under prosecution by DOL. She
suspected that Representative Wilson's point was a
significant number were repeat offenders. She explained
that new opioid addiction may lead to more criminal
behavior in the future. Overall, if recidivism declined,
the DOL numbers should decline in the long-term as long as
new offenders were not coming in for other societal
reasons.
Representative Wilson observed that a reoffender rate of
two out of three individuals was substantial. She referred
to slide 4 showing positions lost in the Criminal Division.
She noted the Criminal Division budget was $27 million and
the Civil Division budget was $22 million. She was trying
to determine how [Criminal Division] positions had dropped
from 128 to 106 when the number of paralegals had remained
the same (the decrease in staff was more substantial) and
there were still 130 civil attorneys. She reasoned if there
was a $5 million difference between the Civil Division and
Criminal Division budgets, there should not be such a
drastic difference between the number of attorneys in each
division. She was concerned that the subcommittee book data
from the department showed an average 10 percent vacancy in
the Criminal Division, meaning on any given day the
division would have approximately 96 attorneys, not 106.
Attorney General Lindemuth explained that the numbers
represented a snapshot in time. She believed the numbers on
slide 4 were from March 2017. She clarified that the
numbers fluctuated and reflected the number of filled
positions at that time. She explained that [in addition to
general funds] the Civil Division budget had an interagency
receipt component. There were more civil attorneys than
criminal because a number of the civil attorneys were
funded by other departments. For example, in DOL's
Environmental Section, there were a couple of attorneys
that the Department of Environmental Conservation helped
fund.
Representative Wilson asked whether the $27 million for the
Criminal Division and the $22 million for the Civil
Division figures excluded interagency receipts.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied in the affirmative.
Slide 2 only included general funds.
Representative Wilson remarked that it was confusing to
hear the department had less money for the Civil Division,
but it had a higher number of attorneys. She reasoned that
mathematically it did not add up.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that the department had
provided a longer presentation to its finance subcommittee.
She had condensed the presentation to focus on the public
safety component. She understood that the concept was
confusing without showing the full picture of the
department's budget.
2:17:04 PM
Representative Wilson referenced Attorney General
Lindemuth's testimony that SB 54 had been brought forward
by DOL and DPS. She asked if the department had determined
methods to measure the success of the proposed changes.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that measuring and
accounting for changes would be addressed and reported on
by ACJC. The commission had expressed concerns that the
more changes made along the way (e.g. every 18 months) made
things more difficult to track.
Representative Wilson referred to numbers provided to the
legislature from the University of Alaska Anchorage Justice
Center showing a relatively low increase in the murder
rate, but a substantial increase in the rape rate from 2014
to 2106. Robbery had also increased, and assaults had
increased slightly. She asked for verification it was
necessary to understand the root cause of the increase. She
referenced discussion of opioid abuse and a correlation
with child protective services. She reported that she had
asked OCS the question, but the office did not keep those
kinds of statistics. She wondered how the state collected
the data and how DOL looked at its cases and determined why
they were increasing substantially. Many people blamed SB
91, but she observed the presentation showed numbers from
2013 and 2014 continuing to rise substantially. She
wondered if changes in SB 54 had any relevance to the
increasing crime rates.
Attorney General Lindemuth responded there were multiple
causes impacting criminal behavior. She believed the
struggle with opioids had a significant impact. She spoke
to correlating information from other departments into the
numbers. She stated that economic stress could also impact
the level of crime in a community. Given when SB 91 went
into effect, she did not believe it was feasible to
conclude that SB 91 increased or caused crime. The
department had observed there were problems in the
implementation - it had heard from law enforcement and
prosecutors about issues needing to be addressed. They
believed providing additional tools and discretion to
courts in SB 54 would help bring the issues into alignment.
Attorney General Lindemuth clarified that her understanding
of the evidence before the commission was that longer
sentences were not superior to shorter sentences in
addressing crime. Spending a significant amount of time in
prisons could increase future recidivism due to mixing low
level offenders with high level offenders. She did not
believe there was any evidence showing no jail time was an
appropriate consequence for Class C felonies. The change in
jail time to zero to 1 years recommended by DOL was still
consistent with the principles of the evidence presented to
the commission (that had led to SB 91), while addressing
some concerns of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the
public.
2:21:37 PM
Representative Wilson was not certain the current system
was helping recidivism or whether there was new crime
resulting from other issues. She was uncertain there would
be any money to reinvest. She wondered about taking time to
revisit SB 91, the associated fiscal notes, and projected
savings. She would prefer the statistics to be for 2017
instead of 2016, but she understood there was a time lag.
She opined that going forward it was necessary to know
whether any savings would be available to fund treatment
programs. Additionally, she reasoned that if the new crimes
were felonies with increased prison sentences, it would
mean an increase in prison cost. She concluded that until
the state understood exactly what it was trying to fight
and what it was measuring, it would make it challenging to
determine whether SB 54 took care of the problems or issues
with SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore provided an explanation for some of the
numbers mentioned by Representative Wilson specific to
sexual assaults. He referenced a document from the
University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center titled
"Crimes Known to Police (Alaska)" (copy on file). He spoke
to a spike in the number of sexual assaults from one recent
year to another (slide 4). He detailed that the UCR was
based on what the FBI requests. He elaborated that there
had been a change to the definition of sexual assaults
being reported (indicated on the chart in yellow). He
clarified that the dramatic increase was not due to a
higher incidence of sexual assaults, but due to the change
in definition that was expanded to include crimes that had
not been previously counted.
2:24:11 PM
Representative Wilson remarked that there was drop between
2012 and 2013, but she observed a fluctuation in the rate
following. She wondered if there had been a change to the
definition more than once.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the definition had only changed
once (indicated on the chart in yellow beginning in 2013).
He agreed there was a subsequent fluctuation in the
numbers. His point had been to highlight the change in the
UCR definition indicated in yellow.
Representative Wilson remarked that her document only
showed black lines with yellow dots. She hoped to get some
further clarification and remarked that the numbers were
awful. She reasoned that a very bad sector of crime had
increased she believed it was important to understand
whether the system would help. She noted that the state had
been battling sexual assault for a long time and the chart
showed they were losing the battle.
Representative Guttenberg thought there had been a lot of
misinformation from many areas of society in Alaska. He
asked about statutory changes had been made in SB 91 to
diminish the arrest authority of law enforcement. He asked
what was being changed in SB 54 to make the state's ability
to prosecute crime more effective.
Mr. Skidmore responded that SB 91 had gone through numerous
changes before its passage. When first introduced, there
had been provisions limiting arrest authority; however, the
bill that had passed the legislature did not limit an
officer's ability to arrest an individual. The bill had
expanded an officer's ability to issue a citation. However,
the system witnessed that for crimes without authorized
jailtime (e.g. a first-time Class C felony). He elaborated
that an officer would arrest an individual and courts would
say they did not want to hold the person pretrial in
custody because if they were ultimately convicted they
would not receive jailtime; therefore, the person was
released immediately. The impact had been officers
questioning why they were arresting a person if they were
merely going to be released; it had resulted in a reduced
number of arrests for a variety of offenses.
Mr. Skidmore addressed Representative Guttenberg's question
about how SB 54 would solve the problem. The bill did not
provide officers with additional discretion to arrest
because it was not needed, but for first-time Class C
felonies it gave courts the discretion to give jail time,
meaning that courts would consider the appropriate bail for
a particular case. The bill provided a tool to help address
one of the problems with implementation that had occurred.
Representative Guttenberg remarked on officers around the
state telling people they were victims of SB 91. He
believed it was an inaccurate and unfortunate statement. He
stated that SB 54 came with recommendations from the
commission and law enforcement; additionally, there were
changes by the House Judiciary Committee. He wondered
whether the state would be able to track the differences
between the data driven changes versus some of the
amendments made in the House Judiciary Committee that would
impact the efficiencies of the law. He wanted to know the
cost of the data driven changes versus others.
Attorney General Lindemuth answered that the commission had
reported that the more times the law was changed, the
harder it became to track. She believed the concern was
valid. She thought the commission would do its best to
track the items. Additionally, the University of Alaska
Anchorage Justice Center was also helping. She reasoned
that just because something was difficult to track did not
mean it was something the state should not do. She believed
it was necessary to keep evaluating. She reminded the
committee that when criminal justice reform had passed, the
bill was so comprehensive, everyone had known it would not
be perfect right out of the gate and that subsequent
changes would be necessary. She continued that the
commission was meant to be in place for a number of years
to look at implementation and provide further
recommendations on changes to the law.
2:30:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the state was
experiencing a crime spike, much of which was driven by the
opioid crisis. He believed it may overshadow any
prospective savings, but he thought the savings would be
there and merely would not be seen due to the increase in
crime resulting from drug abuse. He wondered if there was
any way to overlay trends in Alaska with other states like
Texas that had implemented criminal justice reform and had
seen results. He knew it was early to be tracking at
present.
Attorney General Lindemuth did not know the commission
would be comparing Alaska to other states and looking at
their trajectories. As far as the savings projected for
Alaska, the number of prison beds not used to house inmates
since the passage of SB 91 was on track with what had been
anticipated. Much of the issues Representative Guttenberg
had raised were addressed the commission's recent report.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned the creation of a
prescription drug database in recent years. Part of the
goal had been to increase awareness of the physicians who
fell outside the norm of prescribing drugs. He asked if
Attorney General Lindemuth had seen any referrals from
medical boards concerning the issue. He wondered if DOL was
involved in any part of the issue.
Attorney General Lindemuth understood that the number of
the doctors had signed on had increased significantly - far
over 50 percent of the doctors in Alaska were participating
in the database (previously it had been far less). The
department was anticipating it would be useful going
forward - if doctors knew that a person was "doctor
shopping" and getting pills from multiple prescribers, it
would be reflected in the database. She referenced a DOL
press conference from earlier in the day where she had
announced the department had filed a lawsuit against Purdue
Pharma, the manufacturer of oxycontin. She furthered it was
an 85-page report with detailed allegations against the
company about false advertising that had been taking place
for a number of years; the advertising had significantly
impacted the use of pharmaceuticals in Alaska. She reported
that Dr. Jay Butler, the state's chief medical officer, had
told her that 80 percent of current heroin users had begun
with prescription medication. The state was going to the
source to fight the problem on the front end, so
manufacturers knew they would not be making money on the
backs of Alaskans who then became crippled by addiction.
Co-Chair Foster reminded members that the committee would
hear two additional presentations that would be helpful in
answering questions.
2:35:21 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thanked Attorney General Lindemuth for
bringing a case against Purdue Pharma. He detailed The New
Yorker had published an article in its current edition
about the company's history of hiring physicians to deny
that opioid addictions led to heroin addiction. He asked
whether the attorney general thought there should be a
fiscal note on the bill. He believed the longer a sentence
the more likely the defense would choose to go to trial,
but the shorter the sentence it was less likely. He asked
if there was a correlation between the amount of work that
may need to go into a case if a defendant was facing
jailtime as opposed to less or no jailtime.
Mr. Skidmore disagreed. However, he would agree with the
statements about the likelihood of going to trial if they
pertained to sex crimes. He explained that sentences had
been dramatically increased for sex crimes (the maximum
sentence for a Class A or unclassified offenses had
increased from 20 years to 99 years). He did not believe
that more litigation would occur for cases impacted by SB
54 (Class C felonies) that could receive 18 months of
probation versus one year in jail. He anticipated less
litigation under the scenario. He did not believe there
would be a dramatic change in the amount of litigation
involved for low-level theft (theft under $250).
Additionally, he did not anticipate increased litigation
for violation of conditions of release. He explained that
when responding to crime, there was a need for labor and
the tools; SB 54 pertained to the tools, which would make
the system work more efficiently and effectively. The bill
would not cost DOL increased costs. He deferred to other
departments to address any potential fiscal impact they may
see.
Vice-Chair Gara acknowledged the number of hours put in by
attorneys had an impact on their personal lives. He
believed the individuals should be offered some help in
that regard. He recalled testimony to the attorney general
was that the department was not able to prosecute thefts at
present. He detailed that under SB 91, first-time offenses
with an aggravator could be prosecuted and jailed for up to
five years, but first-time offenses with no aggravator
essentially received probation. He furthered that under SB
54, sentencing with aggravators remained the same, but the
courts could give jailtime from zero to 1 year for first-
time offenses. He asked for verification that DOL would
need additional attorneys if the department accepted more
prosecutions.
Attorney General Lindemuth thought the items discussed by
Vice-Chair Gara were two separate issues. She was not
saying that the department was not prosecuting misdemeanors
or theft cases. She clarified that DOL was prioritizing and
spending more time on more serious cases. She confirmed
that the department would prosecute more crime if it had
additional prosecutors. However, making a change in SB 54
for a particular jailtime would not be a deciding factor in
pushing for something additional.
Vice-Chair Gara understood the department was prioritizing,
but he thought it meant some felony thefts were not
prosecuted. He asked for the accuracy of his statement.
Attorney General Lindemuth agreed that some cases were not
getting prosecuted that the department would otherwise
prosecute if it had the available resources. She did not
want to send the message that DOL was not prosecuting any
property crime.
Mr. Skidmore reemphasized the attorney general's point. He
detailed that DOL had filed over 14,000 misdemeanors in
2016, almost 2,000 were felony property offenses. He
underscored that the department was prosecuting felony
property offenses, but it could not prosecute all cases.
2:42:16 PM
Co-Chair Seaton discussed that a number of individuals had
called to request the repeal of SB 91. He asked Attorney
General Lindemuth whether repealing SB 91 would cost the
state money.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied in the affirmative. She
detailed that the current path for criminal justice reform
was evidence-based and was supposed to reduce recidivism
and save the state money. She believed there was evidence
for the reforms the state had undertaken; the anticipated
cost savings were still expected to be achieved.
Additionally, the state had implemented numerous things
that cost money. She highlighted the 60 pretrial officers
set to begin in January [2018] as an example; the officers
had already been hired. She believed it was a "good add."
The state had spent the money on numerous things that it
would not get back. She stated that the undertaking was a
bit of an experiment, but one that was evidence-based and
that had worked for other states. She recommended seeing
the reform through and to continue evaluating its success
and whether changes were necessary going forward.
2:44:13 PM
Representative Pruitt spoke about the department's 10-year
lookback. He observed that the current budget was slightly
higher, and the Criminal Division budget remained flat. He
stated that in FY 08 the Criminal Division had 231
permanent full-time employees; it currently had 214. He
reasoned that if the department had been tracking at
inflation over the course of 10 years, why it had not done
so with personnel and other items. He wondered what was
driving costs higher than inflation. He was using inflation
because the legislature often heard that if the budget did
not meet inflation it reflected a cut. He asked for the
reason DOL had fewer people and was still challenged, but
its budget had stayed even with inflation.
Attorney General Lindemuth agreed there were fewer
positions in 2008 based on the same dollars. She did not
know what piece was tracking higher than inflation. She
deferred to administrative services directors who would be
available for questions the following day.
Representative Pruitt noted Attorney General Lindemuth had
mentioned she expected to come to the legislature for
additional funding if a fiscal plan was developed. He
thought there may be a decrease or diminished need for
increasing the department's budget if the catalyst behind
maintaining SB 91 was to bring cost savings and lower
crime.
Attorney General Lindemuth replied that there were numerous
things going on. All things being equal, if the opioid and
fiscal problems had not occurred, she agreed that the
recidivism rate should decrease and the demand on the
Criminal Division would flatten out. She suggested that
perhaps that would occur in five or ten years, but she did
not know. The spike in 2015 and 2016 in violent crime and a
record number of homicides in Anchorage were not driven by
criminal justice reform. The prosecutors were needed to
prosecute those crimes and others. There were many things
that contributed to the cause of crime and it was not all
an SB 91 issue.
2:48:48 PM
Representative Pruitt thanked Attorney General Lindemuth
for bringing the lawsuit that had been mentioned earlier.
He was less concerned about the monetary aspect and more
about a goal of reform within the [pharmaceutical]
industry. He addressed Mr. Skidmore and referenced an
earlier question related to the ability for police officers
to make arrests. He believed there were a few things that
may have changed. For example, driving with a suspended
license had changed to a citation. He had heard from
officers that the change limited their ability to pursue a
person (who they may want to ask more questions or dig
deeper) because they were only able to give a ticket
instead of taking it a bit further.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that his earlier answer had been in
response to a question about an officer's authority under
the law when a crime occurred and their ability to arrest.
What Representative Pruitt was describing was a slightly
different scenario where conduct that had formerly been
criminal was decriminalized to a violation. He agreed that
it would change an officer's ability to affect an arrest.
Representative Pruitt appreciated Mr. Skidmore's
clarification.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the presentation testifier list.
^PRESENTATION: CRIMES KNOWN TO POLICE (ALASKA): STATEWIDE
RATES, BY MONTH: 2014-2016 - UAA JUSTICE CENTER
2:53:58 PM
BRAD MYRSTOL PHD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND INTERIM DIRECTOR,
UAA JUSTICE CENTER (via teleconference), introduced the
PowerPoint presentation titled "Crimes Known to Police
(Alaska); Statewide Rates, by Month: 2014-2016" (copy on
file). The first part of the presentation addressed annual
crime rates for Alaska from 1985 to 2016, which provided a
big picture historical perspective for the three-year
period focused on by the presentation. The second part of
the presentation focused on monthly crime rates for Alaska
for the same seven crime categories presented in the first
part of the presentation. He read from prepared remarks:
Presenting monthly crime rates provides the
opportunity to zoom in on annual crime rates and see
important patterns and variations that are masked when
crime counts are aggregated for an entire year.
Dr. Myrstol advanced to slide 3 titled "Property Crime
Rates (Alaska): Crimes Known to Police: 1985-2016" and
continued to read from a statement:
Slide 3 shows the annual crime rates for three offense
categories: larceny theft, burglary, and motor vehicle
theft. Before diving into the trends let me orient you
to the graph. On the left side of the graph you will
see the vertical axis that shows the annual rate
measured of the number of crimes known to police per
100,000 population. Data for the number of crimes were
obtained from the Department of Public Safety's annual
crime in Alaska reports. The population data used to
compute the per capita rates for each crime were
obtained from the population data compelled by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
On the bottom of the graph you will see the horizontal
axis. This axis shows the year, beginning with 1985 in
the lower left corner and extending through 2016 in
the lower right corner. Larceny theft is represented
by a dash/dot line. The larceny theft rate peaked in
1986 at 3,672 per 100,000 population. The data reveals
a consistent near-linear downward trend in larceny
theft rates since 1991 with occasional year-to-year
fluctuations.
Burglary is represented by a dashed line. The burglary
rate peaked in 1985 at 1,121 per 100,000 population.
Once again, we see a steady decline in the statewide
burglary rate through the period.
2:55:39 PM
Dr. Myrstol continued to address slide 3:
Finally, motor vehicle theft is depicted by the solid
black line. The motor vehicle theft rate also peaked
in 1985 at 566 per 100,000 population and again we see
a consistent decline in the motor vehicle theft rate
between 1985 and 2016.
The data shows that Alaska has experienced a long
period of decline for these three categories of
property crime: larceny theft, burglary, and motor
vehicle theft. However, all three also show upticks in
recent years. The rate of larceny theft has increased
16.8 percent since 2011. The burglary rate has
increased almost 39 percent in 2011 as well. And last,
but certainly not least, the rate of motor vehicle
theft has more than doubled, increasing by 116 percent
in 2011.
2:56:44 PM
Dr. Myrstol turned to slide 4: "Violent Crime Rates
(Alaska): Crimes Known to Police: 1985-2016." He continued
to read from prepared remarks:
Slide 4 shows the annual crime rates for four offense
categories: murder and nonnegligent homicide, robbery,
forcible rape, and assault. This graph is a bit
noisier than the previous slide depicting property
crime, so let me walk you through what is depicted in
the graph. You'll notice first that there are two
vertical axes rather than just one. The reason for the
second vertical axis in blue is that the scale for
assaults is so dramatically different from those from
murder, robbery, and forcible rape. In order to
present them on the same graph and be able to
reasonably observe variability, the assault rate
needed to be presented on a separate axis.
The assault rate depicted in the graph ranges from
zero in the bottom right hand corner to 2,000 per
100,000 population. In contrast, the rates for murder,
robbery, and forcible rape range from zero in the
bottom left corner to 150 per 100,000 population.
You'll also notice some color changes in the forcible
rape trend line. There is gray from 1985 through 2012
and black from 2013 through 2016. This color change is
intended to highlight a change in the definition of
forcible rape made by the FBI for the purposes of
uniform crime reporting.
In 2016 the FBI expanded the definition of forcible
rape to include both female and male victims and to
reflect the various forms of sexual penetration
understood to be rape, especially nonconsenting acts
of sodomy and sexual assaults with objects. In
addition to changing the color of the line, I've also
changed the color of the line markers from black to
yellow for each of the four years for which the new
UCR definition applied.
2:58:47 PM
Dr. Myrstol continued to address slide 4 with prepared
remarks:
Beginning with assaults, you can see that there was a
dramatic increase in Alaska's assault rate beginning
in 1987 and peaking in 1995 with 1,938 per 100,000
population. Since 1996, the assault rate has been
consistently hovering around 1,740 per 100,000
population give or take. However, after dropping to
1,561 per 100,000 in 2013, Alaska's assault rate has
increased 17.5 percent.
The pattern for robbery is notably different than that
for assaults. Whereas, the assault rate increased
through the mid-1990s and then remained at a new
higher level, the robbery rate dropped precipitously
after peaking in 1994 at 143 per 100,000 population.
By 1998, the robbery rate had dropped back down to
76.5. By 2004, the robbery rate was down to 65.3 per
100,000, a level that had not been seen since 1989.
Since 2004, Alaska's robbery rate has increased 75.5
percent with a rate of 114 per 100,000 in 2016.
With respect to the forcible rape rate, this rate too
peaked in the 1990s. In 1992, Alaska's forcible rape
rate was 96.5 per 100,000. By 1997, the rate had
declined to 61.5. As recently as 2011, Alaska's
forcible rape rate was 60 per 100,000 population. In
2012, the last year under the legacy UCR definition of
forcible rape, Alaska's rate stood at 79.2 per
100,000. Due to the change in the definition of
forcible rape, direct comparisons should not be made
between the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 rates on the
one hand and the rest of the time series on the other.
Only those years with the same UCR definition should
be compared. Since 2014, the rate of forcible rapes
known to police have increased 36.7 percent.
Finally, while it is difficult to see on the graph
because of the relatively low prevalence of murder and
non-negligent homicide, in general Alaska's homicide
rate has been stable between 1985 and 2016. The
highest rate in the time series came in 1985 at 9.6
per 100,000 population. The lowest rate was in 2009 at
3 per 100,000 population. Since 2009, Alaska's murder
and nonnegligent homicide rate has more than doubled,
increasing from 3 per 100,000 to 7 per 100,000 in
2016.
3:01:58 PM
Dr. Myrstol scrolled to slide 5 titled "Zooming in: Monthly
Crime Rates 2014-2016." He read from prepared remarks:
So, with the big picture in mind we'll now turn to the
presentation of monthly crime rates for the period
2014 through 2016. As I mentioned before, examining
crime rates on a monthly, as opposed to an annual
basis, allows us to see important patterns in the data
that would otherwise be masked when the data are
rolled up into annualized rates.
We'll begin with Alaska's monthly larceny theft rate
beginning in January 2014 and extending through
December 2016.
Dr. Myrstol moved to slide 6: "Larceny Thefts (Alaska):
Larceny Theft Rate, by Month: 2014-2016." He continued
addressing prepared remarks:
You'll notice first that the vertical axis scale is
much smaller than what was used when the annual data
were presented. This is because the annual data
represent the sum total of every month for a given
year. Thus, the monthly rate data are of a much
smaller magnitude than the annual data. Two other
things to note in this graph that distinguishes it
from the annual data that were presented earlier.
First, you'll notice a vertical green line located at
July 2016. This is a visual reference to when SB 91
was signed into law. When this presentation was first
developed I was asked to present monthly crime data in
order to see how crime rates changed immediately after
the law went into effect. For purposes of consistency
I retained that visual reference in today's
presentation.
You'll also notice a smooth red dotted line in the
graph. This represents a best-fit trend line for the
data in the time series. It's presented here to
provide you with a sense of the overall trend, absent
the month-to-month fluctuations in the data.
On to the trend itself. What you'll notice first are
three distinct humps in the time series. This pattern
in the data is what you might call a textbook example
of what we refer to as seasonality. That is the data,
clearly show upward and downward fluctuations at
regular, cyclical intervals. These cyclical
fluctuations correspond to roughly the same months
each year. In other words, the fluctuations in larceny
theft rates follow a cyclical pattern according to
season.
In each of the three years shown, there are peaks in
late summer, early fall and valleys during late fall,
early winter. Understanding seasonality is important
for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is
that if seasonality is not understood, improper
conclusions can be reached. As you can see, the
larceny theft rate declined marginally in the six
months immediately following SB 91 becoming law.
However, as I explained when I presented this data
previously, it would be incorrect to conclude that
such a decline was attributable to SB 91 becoming law.
While the data clearly show decline, the decline is
fully expected given the seasonal pattern in the data.
A second pattern in the data, which is much more
difficult to see at first glance, is what you refer to
as trend. When we say there is trend in the data, what
we mean is that there is a long-term increase or a
long-term decrease. In this case there was upward
trend in the three-year period shown in the graph.
This overall trend is what was shown in the annual
data for larceny theft back on slide 3. So, what we
have in this time series are two components that need
to be taken into account: seasonality and trend.
3:05:52 PM
Dr. Myrstol explained slide 7 titled "Shoplifting (Alaska):
Shoplifting Rate, by Month: 2014-2016":
This slide shows the monthly rate for shoplifting,
which is a subcategory of larceny theft. There is no
seasonality in this time series, but there is a
discernable trend downward.
Dr. Myrstol pointed to slide 8: "Burglaries (Alaska):
Burglary Rate, by Month: 2014-2016." He read from remarks:
Slide 8 presents the monthly rate for burglary between
January 2014 and December 2016. Once again, we see
both seasonality and trend in these data, much like
what we saw with the larceny theft time series, just
not nearly as smooth. The trend in these 36 months of
data is upward, once again as was previously reflected
in slide 3.
Dr. Myrstol advanced to slide 9: "MV Thefts (Alaska): MV
Theft Rate, by Month: 2014-2016." He continued to read from
a statement:
Slide 9 shows the monthly rate of motor vehicle thefts
for Alaska. There is little in these data to suggest
seasonality and can clearly see pronounced upward
trend, particularly since the early spring in 2015.
The month-to-month increases in these data beginning
in early spring 2015 are quite striking.
Dr. Myrstol detailed slide 10: "Homicide (Alaska): Homicide
Rate, by Month: 2014-2016." He read prepared remarks:
Slide 10 shows the murder nonnegligent homicide rate
from January 2014 through December 2016. While there
is wide variability in these data, something that is
common with such low base rate phenomena, there is no
discernable seasonality or trend in these data. You
can see a very modest aggregate increase during the
period, but not an increase of statistical
significance.
3:07:44 PM
Dr. Myrstol continued to slide 11: "Forcible Rape (Alaska):
Forcible Rape Rate, by Month: 2014-2016." He read from
prepared remarks:
Slide 11 presents Alaska's forcible rape rate for the
three-year period. I would note here that this three-
year period is the new definition under the FBI's UCR
program. There's a hind of seasonal pattern of the
data, but not much of one. There is discernable trend
in the data however. Since 2014, Alaska's forcible
rape rate has certainly increased.
Dr. Myrstol discussed slide 12 "Robbery (Alaska): Robbery
Rate, by Month: 2014-2016" with prepared remarks:
Slide 12 presents Alaska's robbery rate for the period
spanning January 2014 and December 2016. These data do
not show evidence of seasonality, but there is clear
trend present. There's been a notable increase in the
monthly robbery rate. This increase was reflected back
in slide 4.
Dr. Myrstol moved to slide 13 "Assault (Alaska): Assault
Rate, by Month: 2014-2016" and read prepared remarks:
Finally, slide 13 shows Alaska's assault rate month-
by-month for the three-year period spanning 2014
through 2106. These data show both seasonality and
upward trend.
Dr. Myrstol advanced to slide 14 "All Crime Rates (Alaska):
Crime Rates, by Month: 2014-2016" and continued to read:
This slide presents all of the monthly crime data
together in one chart. Two big takeaways from this
slide: one, property crime rates are driven primarily,
though not exclusively, by larceny theft; and two,
violent crime rates are driven primarily, though not
exclusively, by assault.
While I presented both annual and monthly crime rate
data to you today, it is important to note that all of
the data have been statewide estimates. Statewide
crime rates do not necessarily reflect what is
happening in particular communities, just as annual
crime rates mask important monthly variation in crime
rates, statewide rates also mask important community
variation.
3:10:07 PM
Dr. Myrstol read remarks pertaining to slide 15: "Summary:
July 2016 - December 2016":
The last two slides are summary tables showing the
percentage change between two specific months of each
crime category. The table on slide 15 shows the
difference in the monthly crime rate as recorded in
July 2016 and December 2016. This difference
represents change in the monthly crime rates during
the immediate post-SB 91 period. The table on the next
slide presents a different percentage change.
Dr. Myrstol moved to slide 16: "Summary: January 2014 -
December 2016." He read from prepared testimony:
Slide 16 shows the percentage change between the first
month in the time series (January 2014) and the last
month in the time series (December 2016). You'll
notice a dramatic change in the color and direction of
the percentage change arrows for five of the crime
categories presented. The difference in these slides
demonstrates the importance of taking account of both
seasonality and trend in the data. If you use too
short of a time period to calculate a percentage
change, you could reach faulty conclusions. As a
general rule, more data is better, and this is
particularly true for examining crime trends. Crime is
cyclical, crime is seasonal; month-to-month and year-
to-year fluctuations are both normal and expected. In
order to reach firm conclusions, we should take as
long a view as possible whether examining monthly
crime rates or annual crime rates.
Dr. Myrstol concluded his testimony and thanked the
committee for its time.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed other testifiers available online.
3:12:34 PM
Representative Grenn thanked Dr. Myrstol for his
presentation. He noted that several weeks earlier Dr.
Myrstol had given a presentation to a subcommittee that was
much more focused on several urban communities. He believed
the data had showed that petty theft and car thefts were up
in Anchorage. He continued that the data [in the current
presentation] was not reflecting that, but his neighbors
felt differently. He thought people had a difficulty
accepting the data whole heartedly because crimes were not
reported for various reasons. He wondered if it was
possible to know what percentage of crimes went unreported.
He asked how confident Dr. Myrstol was that the data
provided an accurate reflection of what was happening in
the communities.
Dr. Myrstol had a tremendous amount of confidence in the
data; however, it was important to understand the
limitations of the data. For the reasons articulated by
Representative Grenn, there were limits to administrative
data pertaining to how much crime was occurring in the
community. He stated that most crime was not reported and
varied significantly from one crime category to another. He
stated it was about half-and-half in terms of the volume
reported to police. However, the way the UCR program was
set up, there was high confidence in the year-to-year data
submitted. The gap between how much crime occurred and how
much was reported to police was consistent from year-to-
year; therefore, statistically it went to zero. One of the
tremendous benefits of the UCR data was the uniform
collection process from year-to-year in each jurisdiction;
it aided in the development of time series. Unless there
was reason to believe a significant structural shift had
occurred in the reasons people were not reporting, it was
possible to look at trends and understand whether or not
crime was increasing or decreasing over the long-term (even
if they did not know precisely how much crime was taking
place).
Representative Grenn asked for verification that unless SB
91 significantly altered the number of crimes people were
reporting, Dr. Myrstol was confident it was possible to
compare 1995 to 2005 to 2015 because the data collection
remained the same.
Dr. Myrstol answered in the affirmative. Unless there was a
good reason to believe that people were suddenly not
reporting at all at a magnitude that would impact crime
rates - he reminded the committee they were talking about
population level metrics - it would take a large segment of
the population previously reporting, to not be reporting
now. He furthered it was plausible, but it would be a
monumental shift.
3:17:36 PM
Representative Kawasaki had a similar question about sexual
assault because it was broadly known as being an
underreported crime. He asked for detail.
Dr. Myrstol replied that in general, violent crimes were
reported more often than property crimes. He noted there
was important variability within each of those broad
categorizations. Sexual assaults were notoriously
underreported for a host of complicated reasons. He
detailed that only one in four or one in three sexual
assaults and rapes were reported to police. While there was
some variability in year-to-year reporting rates, there was
research showing it was pretty consistent over time. The
reporting rates were not known in Alaska because there was
not a statewide victimization survey. He explained that
victimization surveys measured the difference between how
much was happening to people and how much was reported to
policy. The statistics he cited regarding the number of
sexual assaults and rapes reported was based on national
data.
Dr. Myrstol continued that there was not great data on
shoplifting. The best estimates he had seen showed that
about 90 percent of shoplifting incidents were not
reported. The percentage appeared to be consistent over
time. There were a host of complicated reasons why
businesses may not report shoplifting. He detailed that
businesses may absorb the loss, it may be part of their
business model, they may not want to go through the hassle
of reporting for small dollar items, and other. On the
other hand, motor vehicle thefts tended to get reported at
very high rates. There was high incentive and motivation
for people to report those sorts of thefts. The estimate
was between 70 and 80 percent of motor vehicle thefts were
reported to police. He emphasized that in general across
all categories, the nonreporting rates were consistent over
time.
Representative Kawasaki referenced Dr. Myrstol's testimony
that systematic shifts could take place. He relayed that
Fairbanks had fewer deputized officers than it had four or
five years earlier. He believed they were down 10 percent.
He noted that DPS mentioned they were 40 troopers down. He
wondered about the impact on reporting.
Dr. Myrstol answered that he could only speculate on how
the number of police officers would impact reporting rates,
which may be different than things like response time. To
the extent that people did not report because they felt a
disconnection or apathy with the police department. Adding
more police officers may do nothing to increase reporting
rates; however, adding more officers may help the
department capture unfound crimes reported to dispatch. It
was a complicated mix in terms of the motivation to report,
the relationship residents had with their local police
agency, and the ability for the agency to accurately and
adequately capture reported crimes that ultimately went
into the UCR data.
Representative Kawasaki spoke of a personal experience in
which he had a trailer was stolen. He shared that he had
not reported the crime because he felt like police had a
lot to do and it had not been a very important thing to
him. He did not know if other people were thinking the same
thing. He supported the state's law enforcement and knew
they were struggling, which was one reason had had not yet
reported the theft. He noted he would report it.
3:23:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Dr. Myrstol was familiar with the
substantial increases in jailtime the state had adopted in
the mid-2000s for rape and other sex crimes.
Dr. Myrstol responded that he had a general familiarity
with the sentencing structure that was changed in the mid-
2000s, but he did not claim any statutory authority in that
regard.
Vice-Chair Gara reasoned that people were sent to jail for
violent crimes for reasons other than reversing the trend
in crime (e.g. community condemnation, punishment to fit
the crime, and other). He furthered that even with the
statutes that increase jailtime for those serious crimes,
the increase in the rape rate since 2010 was disturbing. He
asked if Dr. Myrstol had any information to help the
committee understand why.
Dr. Myrstol answered there were two data sources with
respect to the prevalence of sexual violence and forcible
rape as measured through the UCR. He shared that his
colleague Dr. Andre Rosay was the principal investigator
for the Alaska Victimization Survey (AVS) in partnership
with the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(CDVSA) - they had conducted statewide surveys in 2010 and
2015. It was one of the victimization surveys that Alaska
had, which was state of the art. The most recent data from
the survey showed that victimization rates had improved
since the first iteration of the AVS in 2010 for past year
and lifetime prevalence of sexual violence. On the other
hand, the police data showed the inverse. One likely
explanation was that police data captured a phenomenon of
increased willingness for victims to come forward and seek
assistance through the criminal justice system. Given
recent very intense work by the state in that area of
public policy, he believed it was a reasonable hypothesis
that the state did not have the data to specify it was the
reason for a decline in victimization rates and an increase
in the number of reports being made to police.
Vice-Chair Gara referenced the black line showing an
increase in the rape rate (slide 4) and understood the
increase also had something to do with the federal
definition change. He asked if the line would be increasing
if the definition had not changed.
Dr. Myrstol responded that it was hard to know how the
change in definition impacted the overall pattern in the
data. He pointed to the gray line on slide 4, which showed
a relative period of stability through the 1990s and early
2000s with a slight uptick in the early 2000s. The change
in the federal definition resulted in a structural jump in
the line, which turned to black and included yellow
markers. The challenge was there was not a lengthy time
series when it came to forcible rape under the new
definition. The monthly data presented on slide 11 helped
breakdown the information a bit with 36 data points over
the three-year period. They were beginning to understand
the overall trend under the new definition, but it was
difficult to reach firm conclusions with only four years of
data.
3:28:19 PM
Representative Grenn mentioned the opioid epidemic and
asked if the UAA Justice Center tracked drug arrests in
recent years.
Dr. Myrstol responded that DPS published annual arrest data
in its Crime Alaska report. The center had some ability to
get some analytic leverage on that, but it did not have a
standing research program focusing specifically on the
topic. However, it could compile a dataset and provide
detail on drug related offenses.
Representative Grenn replied that he would appreciate the
information.
Representative Pruitt remarked that legislators were
hearing a significant amount about nonviolent offenses. He
reported that business owners were seeing an increase in
shoplifting. He understood it may be challenging for the
center to gather the information if it was not reported to
police. He asked if the center had the means to connect
with retail organizations to find out if they had seen an
increase or change in shoplifting, employee theft, or other
loss. He stated that huge spikes [in crime] were usually
analyzed by those organizations to understand the cause.
Dr. Myrstol answered that in theory if the center had
access to data it could analyze it. He had never undertaken
an original data collection asking private businesses for
their loss prevention shrink data. It would be something
new for the center, but it was open to the idea.
Representative Pruitt had heard scenarios where people were
openly stealing liquor from liquor stores. He believed
there may be an impact that may show in business
financials. He wondered if the information would help
determine if businesses were noticing theft more because
people were being bolder or if crime had increased. He
appreciated Dr. Myrstol's testimony.
Co-Chair Foster noted there was one additional presentation
and was willing to continue through the scheduled time.
^PRESENTATION: ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM
3:33:39 PM
TONY PIPER, MANAGER, ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), introduced the PowerPoint Presentation:
"Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)." The goal of the
presentation was to provide an understanding of what ASAP
did and how the changes in SB 91 and proposed changes in SB
54 impacted the program. He began on slide 2 titled
"Changes with SB91." He detailed that SB 91 had made two
major changes for the ASAP office. First, it had narrowed
the offenses to be referred to ASAP to include only OUI
[operating under the influence] and DUI [driving under the
influence] and refusals or those offenses referred by the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for violating laws
pertaining to a driver's license action due to alcohol or a
controlled substance. He furthered that the change
eliminated many other referrals such as domestic violence
with alcohol, disturbing the peace, and other misdemeanor
crimes accompanied by alcohol or other controlled
substances. Second, SB 91 required ASAP to provide a risk
assessment or screening in order to determine a person's
risk of reoffending and to provide more intensive
monitoring of high-risk individuals.
3:36:28 PM
Mr. Piper turned to slide 3: "Proposed changes with SB54."
The proposed changes in SB 54 would change the requirements
for referrals and open up those referrals to offenses
outside of OUIs and DUIs. The change would mean that
misdemeanors (including domestic violence) involving
alcohol or controlled substances could be referred to ASAP.
The change would increase referrals to ASAP and it would
require the program to maintain the same scope of work
designated by SB 91 involving increased screening and
monitoring of higher risk people.
Mr. Piper moved to slide 4: "Cases BEING MONITORED." He
detailed that in FY 15 there had been 7,286 new admissions
and 1,618 remaining cases related to individuals who had
not completed their ASAP requirements in the year they had
been admitted. He furthered that the cases not completed in
the year admitted may take one, two, or more years due to
longer treatment requirements, taking a break in fulfilling
requirements, or acquiring additional charges. The total
amount of cases monitored were 8,904 [pre-SB 91]. The new
admissions had decreased some in FY 16, but the remaining
cases were relatively high adding up to a total of
approximately 8,000 or so cases continuing to be monitored
pre-SB 91. New admissions had decreased by approximately
2,200 or so in FY 17, post-SB 91, but it required ASAP
staff to provide more intensive scope of work for higher
risk people.
3:39:11 PM
Mr. Piper advanced to slide 5: "How ASAP works." He
explained that many people who came in contact with ASAP
were overwhelmed by the experience of being arrested. The
program's initial job was to inform individuals about what
the program did, how they could get court requirements met,
how the process could work for them, and how they could get
their driver's license back or other things that could help
motivate them to finish the program. The ASAP goal was for
participants to benefit from the experience and not come
back. He furthered that program staff helped participants
fill out releases of information and gave them privacy
notices. The releases allowed staff to speak with a
participant's attorney, the treatment agency, family
services, and other people who may be involved in the case.
Staff also reviewed a participant's rights and
responsibilities with them in terms of making it through
the program.
Mr. Piper moved to slide 6: "Information
Gathering/Screening/Assessments." The program's next step
was to gather all the information about a person they could
including a person's criminal history, treatment history,
details about prior ASAP cases, and blood alcohol content
(if known). The program used a substance use screening tool
and following changes in SB 91, ASAP also used a risk/needs
screening tool for each client.
Mr. Piper addressed slide 7: "Choosing an Treatment Agency
& ASAP Referral." The next steps involved determining the
best fit for a client, what their needs were, the amount of
required monitoring, and all other available options to
enable a person to successfully complete the program. The
screening tool used was a level of service inventory (LSI-
r); the tool was also used by therapeutic courts and DOC
for inmates. The tool provided a good measurement of the
person's risk of reoffending and gave direction for
treatment recommendations because it looked at several
domains that may affect a person's life.
3:41:57 PM
Mr. Piper looked at slide 8: "Monitoring Higher Risk (NEW
WITH SB91)." He continued that once the program determined
the best fit for an individual in terms of location, cost,
treatment philosophy, some people went to education and
some it was about convenience for people (some individuals
lost their driver's license and had use bus
transportation), some people were available for services at
the Veterans Administration (VA), or other options.
Mr. Piper relayed that after the assessment process, staff
identified the lowest risk individuals who would
successfully complete the program with minimal assistance
from the program. Once the individuals completed the
program, ASAP notified the court and individuals could
follow up with any remaining action such as contacting DMV.
The medium risk individuals (those with other stressors in
their lives or needed more help getting through the
program) received moderate monitoring. For example, ASAP
may check with an agency to ensure an individual had
followed through with an appointment. The higher risk
individuals required most of the resources and caused most
of the problems in the system; therefore, they were
monitored as closely as possible. Program staff reminded
the individuals of appointments and followed up with them
afterwards to ensure they attended. The program also helped
with referrals related to primary care issues or other
things to help individuals be successful in the program.
3:45:00 PM
Mr. Piper moved to slide 9: "Levels of Treatment." There
were different treatment options - many people with little
risk could get away with doing an alcohol drug information
school (ADIS), a standardized program that followed best
practices; ASAP made sure providers were trained on a
regular basis and had continuing education every couple of
years. Other treatment options were outpatient, intensive
outpatient, and residential/inpatient - whatever the court
would allow for individuals needing care. Other items
considered in assessments were signs of behavioral health
issues and the need for mental health treatment or a
therapist. There was a victim impact panel (VIP) for
individuals involved in traffic related incidents (the
panel occurred once per month). There was also an option
for a second opinion valuation for individuals who wanted
it.
Mr. Piper addressed slide 10: "Agency Reports." The program
gave a letter of compliance to first-time offenders, which
the individual could send to DMV to start the process of
getting an interlocking device for their vehicle as long as
they maintained their treatment requirements. When
individuals complete the program, ASAP sent a letter to DMV
and notified the court. There was a list of other options
that may occur when individuals were not in compliance:
· Petition to Revoke (PTR)
· Bench Warrant (BW)
· Reassignment to ASAP ($)
· Fast Track (more court oversight)
· Hearings
· Impose Suspended Fine/Time
Mr. Piper moved to slide 11: "DMV Sign Off." First offenses
could be in compliance and may just require education.
Individuals with a second offense or with a higher blood
alcohol concentration may need to see a treatment
specialist or someone to assess their use in case a more
intensive level of treatment was needed. When individuals
finish with ASAP they always had access to program staff
for questions. The program had grantee offices throughout
the state with a primary office in Anchorage.
Mr. Piper highlighted the ASAP FY 16 and FY 17 budgets on
slide 12. The program housed 13 permanent full-time
positions. He pointed to a small grant line that went out
to providers around the state. There had been some shifting
in funding, but it remained stable at present.
3:49:58 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would be looking
at Appendix F and fiscal notes the following day.
Representative Wilson pointed to slide 4 and began with FY
15. She noted that 6,675 people was the difference between
the number of people in the program at the beginning. She
asked how many of the individuals successfully completed
the program. She asked what success meant.
Mr. Piper answered that he would follow up with the
numbers. A good portion of participants did not return to
the program. Successful completion of the program meant
that a person fulfilled all needs determined after their
assessment (e.g. treatment or an educational program).
Individuals may have problems along the way, but once a
person graduated from the programs they had completed the
ASAP and court requirements.
Representative Wilson asked if the individuals were tracked
after completing the program. Mr. Piper answered in the
negative. He noted tracking may be something ASAP did in
the future.
Representative Wilson asked if a person who had been
through the program and reoffended had an opportunity to
come back to the program.
Mr. Piper answered that individuals could return to the
program as many times as they wanted. However, at some
point an offense may rise to the felony level and would
involve a direction other than the misdemeanor ASAP office.
Representative Wilson asked how many individuals had been
in the program more than once. Mr. Piper replied that he
had asked staff to compile the numbers and he would follow
up with the information.
Representative Wilson believed the information would be
helpful.
3:53:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton shared that he had followed the House
Judiciary Committee meetings [on the bill] where there had
been testimony the ASAP budget was fully utilized on the
participants it had. He referenced an adopted amendment
that maintained criteria for the program to provide more
case management services and more follow up, which he
believed (based on testimony) was what made the program
most effective. He thought there were potentially 3,000
more participants per year. He asked if the program had the
budgetary resources to follow the additional individuals.
He wondered if the program would need additional staff or
resources.
Mr. Piper answered that the plan was to develop the
regulations required of the program; through the
regulations, ASAP was hoping to modify the workload, so it
would be manageable for staff to do what was required
without additional resources. However, whether additional
resources would be needed was not yet known because the
expanded caseload was new. The program was aiming for more
efficiencies, such as a group orientation versus the prior
individual orientation. The program was also looking at
computerized screening to cut down on some of the manpower.
They did not want to over or under monitor people. Once
efficiencies had been made the program would determine
whether it needed to ask for more funding later.
3:56:02 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked when the regulations would be written
and adopted.
Mr. Piper answered that ASAP was currently writing the
regulations. They were trying to gather more information
about what the changes looked like for the program prior to
implementing regulation. Some of the processes, such as
group orientation, were already in place. The program was
also looking at potential changes to the screening process
and increasing other efficiencies.
Co-Chair Seaton asked how long the regulatory process would
take.
Mr. Piper deferred the question to a colleague.
RANDALL BURNS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, replied that ASAP
would go through the normal process. Once regulations were
drafted they would go out for public comment prior to
adoption. The process would occur over the next six months.
He believed they would have adequate time to get the
regulations in place if the House passed SB 54 with the new
language.
3:58:36 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked the department to follow up on
whether a delayed effective date was needed for the
expansion.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that ASAP
assessed and monitored individuals coming into the program,
but it was not a treatment provider.
Mr. Piper answered in the affirmative. He detailed the
program did the monitoring, screening, assessment, and
referral for treatment agencies.
Representative Guttenberg referenced recent public
testimony in Juneau regarding treatment. He noted the
speakers had been successful with treatment, but success
had not happened for them on their first time. He believed
there were a broad spectrum of successful and unsuccessful
programs. He asked if ASAP measured the programs to
determine their success. He believed it was a critical
component.
Mr. Piper deferred the question to Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns answered that ASAP was not conducting regular
monitoring of the treatment programs it referred
participants to. The programs filed reports in order for
ASAP to monitor performance of the individuals.
Mr. Piper added that many of the programs were private and
they were all required to be nationally accredited;
therefore, they were required to follow certain national
standards. He furthered that ASAP investigated complaints
made by individuals, but it did not monitor the success
rates of programs. He did not know whether it was something
ASAP could do.
Representative Guttenberg did not understand the concept of
the state was putting people into programs without
assessing their success rates. He reasoned that some people
did well in one program and not in another. He furthered
that ASAP was assessing individuals and assigning them to
private and nonprofit treatment. He could not imagine that
ASAP was not evaluating programs it referred individuals
to. He found the situation problematic.
4:03:59 PM
Mr. Burns clarified that ASAP made an effort and paid
attention when individuals had been unsuccessful in a
program. The probation officer was aware of the information
and the officer could and did made referrals to other
programs that may be more appropriate. He did not know that
ASAP was tracking on a daily or quarterly basis how many
individuals were successful in a program on a case by case
basis; however, ASAP was certainly aware of programs where
an individual was not succeeding, and it did make referrals
to other programs. Success in a program was individualized;
if an individual was not ready for substance abuse
treatment, they were probably not ready and may have to
return later.
Representative Guttenberg asked if ASAP had the ability to
stop referrals to an agency. Mr. Burns answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg asked how ASAP established
conditions to justify its decision to discontinue referring
participants to a specific program.
Mr. Burns answered that when ASAP placed conditions on
grants issued; if the conditions were not met, ASAP program
managers worked with grantees to determine why and to
hopefully help them make adjustments. He clarified that
ASAP did not rely only on a program's accreditation; it
followed up on complaints to ensure the program was
operating as it requested.
4:07:08 PM
Representative Tilton observed that ASAP's second largest
budget item was the grants and benefits line. She asked how
many grants were administered by the program. She asked
whether there were different varieties of treatment
throughout the state. She stressed that treatment was one
of the number one items the committee heard about from the
public in terms of importance. She believed having a
monitoring program tracking individual grantees was very
important. She suggested talking with the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) - in the past DHSS had
trouble following outcomes of grantees and it had come up
with a solution.
Mr. Piper answered that the program had 12 grantees around
the state including small communities such as Bethel,
Copper River, and Dillingham. He explained that the
grantees acted as an ASAP office in those areas. The grants
were sometimes very small and were all supported by the
Anchorage ASAP office. He detailed that ASAP provided the
training and access to the MIS [Management Information
System] database. Additionally, ASAP was available at any
time to help grantees through the process. There were also
ASAP offices in larger communities such as Fairbanks,
Juneau, Kenai, and Ketchikan, which were typically able to
do most of the work themselves. He reiterated his earlier
testimony that the Anchorage office provided support and
backup to the other offices.
Representative Tilton surmised that the dollars included on
the grant line funded satellite ASAP offices in smaller
communities. Mr. Piper replied in the affirmative. He
detailed that most of the offices were connected to a
treatment agency as well.
4:10:40 PM
Representative Tilton asked for verification that the
treatment programs ASAP offices referred individuals to
were not ASAP grantees.
Mr. Piper replied that occasionally the ASAP office was the
only entity in the area; sometimes the office had treatment
services available within the organization or a different
part of the organization.
Representative Tilton asked for verification that when ASAP
made recommendations to refer someone for treatment, in
most instances in smaller communities the individuals went
to a satellite ASAP office for treatment.
Mr. Piper answered in the affirmative; in many cases it was
the only option available [in small communities].
Representative Tilton asked for verification that in larger
communities ASAP made recommendations for people to get
treatment with providers outside the ASAP office.
Mr. Piper replied in the affirmative. He detailed that when
there were additional options available, the ASAP agency
was required to offer those options as appropriate for an
individual.
Representative Tilton asked for verification that ASAP did
not have a way to track the outcomes of a particular
treatment program that fell outside the ASAP offices. She
asked how the program decided where to recommend a person
go.
4:13:22 PM
Mr. Piper answered that ASAP found and referred individuals
to treatment agencies with national accreditation. Almost
every agency used had oversight giving ASAP confidence in
the agency's legitimacy.
Mr. Burns asked Mr. Piper to explain how ASAP individuals
pay for the treatment.
Mr. Piper explained that participants typically paid for
the services out of pocket. Many of the agencies had
sliding scale fees. He furthered that many times ASAP tried
to find people eligible for Medicaid assistance.
Representative Tilton stated her understanding that
individuals paid for the service and most of the grant line
went towards funding satellite ASAP offices in smaller
communities. She asked how a treatment provider got on
ASAP's list as a recommended provider.
Mr. Piper replied that ASAP maintained a list; people could
apply and most went through the division in some way. Grant
programs and private providers contacted ASAP and the
programs were then required to meet a certain standard to
be on the list.
Representative Tilton surmised that a program participant
could find a treatment program to bring forward to ASAP.
She believed ASAP would then check the program's
credentials and would approve it. She asked for
verification that ASAP was not keeping any background
information on the overall outcomes coming from a provider.
Mr. Piper corrected that ASAP maintained a list of
treatment providers it had approved, and individuals could
choose from that list. The individuals did not come to ASAP
with a provider. He underscored that providers to achieve
national accreditation it was a process for ASAP to ensure
the programs met the standards to be on its provider list.
He furthered that ASAP knew who graduated from programs;
ASAP investigated if it had suspicion that no one was
graduating from a program or there were problems. However,
ASAP did not track in a statistical way how programs were
doing or how they graduated participants.
4:17:42 PM
Representative Wilson referenced the FY 16 and FY 17 ASAP
budget shown on slide 12. She estimated that each of the
program's 13 staff had been making about $104,000 in FY 16
compared to approximately $84,000 in FY 17. She asked if
program staff had decided to take a pay cut.
Mr. Piper responded that in FY 17 there had been some
vacancies, which had taken some time to fill; there had
been periods where the program had been lacking staff,
which was part of the discrepancy between the two personnel
budgets.
Representative Wilson asked if the average salary of an
ASAP employee was about $100,000.
Mr. Piper replied that the starting salary for an ASAP
probation officer was about $86,000. He was not sure where
the $104,000 mentioned by Representative Wilson came from.
Representative Wilson replied that she had divided
$1,361,900 [on the personal services line] by 13. She asked
if the [starting] salary was $86,000 plus benefits.
Alternatively, she asked if it was $86,000 complete.
Mr. Piper replied that $86,000 was the complete figure.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that the bill currently had an
immediate effective date on the specific provision; there
would be no time delay before additional people would be
referred to ASAP. He asked ASAP to consider that in follow
up information it would provide to the committee.
Co-Chair Foster noted that members could ask questions of
any of the departments present. He added that members would
have an opportunity to ask questions the following day as
well.
4:20:37 PM
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that his comments the previous day
related to sentencing ranges had been confusing. He hoped
to clarify information on sentencing ranges and the concept
of increasing sentences with aggravators. He asked about
the sentencing maximum for unclassified offenses (i.e.
murder, rape, and other).
Mr. Skidmore replied that unclassified felonies generally
had a maximum sentencing range of 99 years.
Vice-Chair Gara noted there had been testimony several
times from the family of a murder victim that feared they
would have to start going to parole hearings. He asked for
verification that minimum jailtime for murder in the first
and second degree from 10 and 20 years to 20 and 30 years
respectively.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the mandatory minimum sentencing
had been increased for both offenses, but he would have to
follow up with the detail.
Vice-Chair Gara asked Mr. Steiner if the numbers he had
provided were accurate.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered that the minimum
sentencing had been increased by SB 91, but he did not have
the numbers on hand.
Vice-Chair Gara asked the departments to follow up and let
him know if he was wrong about the numbers he had listed.
He spoke to his understanding of discretionary parole. He
believed that a murderer could request a parole hearing,
but the Parole Board could deny the request. He asked if
his description of discretionary parole was accurate.
Mr. Skidmore answered that discretionary parole was when
someone could ask for parole and the Parole Board decided
whether they would be released. He followed up on Vice-
Chair Gara's earlier question about murder sentencing
increases. The mandatory minimums for first degree murder
had been increased from 20 to 30 years and the minimum for
second degree murder had been increased from 10 to 15
years.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the question about when a murder
victim's family had to worry about the perpetrator asking
for parole. He asked for verification that before and after
the implementation of SB 91 a person could request
discretionary parole after the greater of the mandatory
minimum sentence or one-half of the actual sentence if
greater than the mandatory minimum.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that a person could request
discretionary parole after the greater of either the
mandatory minimum or one-third of the imposed sentence.
Vice-Chair Gara restated that the timeframe was at least
the mandatory minimum, but if one-third of the imposed
sentence was longer than the mandatory minimum it would be
that period.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for the maximum sentences for Class
A, B, and C felonies.
4:25:14 PM
Mr. Skidmore replied that the maximum sentence for a Class
A felony was 20 years, the maximum for a Class B was 10
years, and the maximum for a Class C was 5 years.
Vice-Chair Gara stated there were over 30 aggravators in
statute. He asked for a description of an aggravator.
Mr. Skidmore replied that an aggravator was a set of
circumstances the legislature had placed into statute that
would authorize a judge to increase the sentencing above
the presumptive range.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification a judge could
increase sentencing up to the maximum for a given class of
crime.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that much of the bill related to
Class C felonies. He stated that criminal mischief in the
third degree was a C felony for first-time offenders with a
sentence of zero to one year. However, if a person
committed an aggravator they could be sentenced up to five
years. He believed an aggravator could include firing a
weapon while committing criminal mischief.
Mr. Skidmore did not recall whether criminal mischief in
the second or third degree was a C felony. Pertaining to a
C felony, because the use of a dangerous instrument would
not be an element of the criminal mischief, the use of a
dangerous instrument in furtherance of an offense would be
an aggravator and would authorize a court to impose a
sentence up to the maximum if it chose to do so.
Vice-Chair Gara stated there had been discussion in
committee over the past week about sexual abuse of a minor
in the third degree, which was a C felony. He described the
crime and explained it applied if there was an age
difference of four years between the two individuals - it
could be amplified for certain ages. Sentencing under SB 54
for a first-time offense of sexual abuse of a minor in the
third degree was zero to one year. He referenced a case
where the individual had been severely beaten; in that case
the aggravator made the crime one of the most serious
versions of the crime. He asked for comment.
Mr. Skidmore answered that a Class C felony, sexual abuse
of a minor in the third degree, had a sentence of zero to
one year under SB 54. He referenced the case mentioned by
Vice-Chair Gara and believed the case was Atkinson. The
fact that the victim had been severely beaten was one of
the facts considered by the court to determine an
aggravator applied.
4:29:38 PM
Vice-Chair Gara believed that in the cases talked about the
aggravator could move the sentencing range from zero to one
year up to five years for a first-time felony.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the use of aggravators was
uncommon.
Mr. Steiner replied that the use of aggravators was common.
He detailed that it was a matter of how a case processed. A
person may be charged with something, but aggravators were
not pled as part of the charging process. The aggravators
came up in the plea negotiation process and potentially at
the trial process where they may get pled if necessary
because of a jury verdict, which was true for most
aggravators.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to make clear that for a first C
felony offence an aggravator could increase the sentence of
zero to one year up to a maximum of five years.
Mr. Steiner agreed.
Vice-Chair Gara returned to the topic of sexual abuse of a
minor in the third degree. He detailed his understanding of
the crime. He believed the crime had to involve a four-year
age difference. He stated it could be an 18-year-old and a
14-year-old and the law specified that a 14-year-old could
not consent. He continued that the individuals could think
they have a relationship, but the law disagreed. He
believed the situation was a Class C felony.
Mr. Skidmore responded that sexual abuse of a minor in the
third degree was based upon an offender being 17 years of
age or older and a victim who was 13, 14, or 15 years of
age; a four-year age difference was required. He referenced
Vice-Chair Gara's question about consent related to sexual
abuse of a minor. He clarified that consent pertained to
sexual assault and did not play a role in sexual abuse of a
minor.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed that sentencing ranges existed to
recognize that some conduct within a given crime could be
more serious than in other cases. For example, a person may
get a shorter sentence if the defendant was 18-years-old,
the victim was 14-years-old and brief touching occurred.
Another version of the same crime could involve a 50-year-
old, with a 14-year-old victim where severe groping
occurred without clothing. He asked if those two examples
were different versions of a given crime.
4:33:23 PM
Mr. Skidmore replied that for many crimes the elements
described the facts that had to exist. Vice-Chair Gara had
provided two sets of circumstances that both met the
elements. The presumptive sentencing range was considered
to be for the ordinary course of the crime. There was a
mitigator for least serious and an aggravator for most
serious. The aggravators and mitigators were meant to be on
the far ends of the spectrum and the presumptive sentencing
was supposed to be in the middle.
Mr. Steiner believed the description was fair.
Vice-Chair Gara surmised the point of sentencing ranges was
to enable a judge to sentence based on the conduct
committed.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Representative Wilson referred to public testimony from the
previous evening where the committee had been told a person
could come up for probation [parole] every two years. She
asked if it had been done in SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that it was parole, not probation.
He detailed that a provision in SB 91 talked about the
frequency of a parole hearing, not how quickly it occurred.
He explained that SB 91 did suggest a parole hearing could
occur every two years, but SB 54 removed the provision;
therefore, the time between hearings could be longer than
two years.
Representative Wilson asked if a victim could specify they
did not want to continue to be notified. Alternatively, she
asked if the notification was mandated.
Mr. Skidmore answered that his department did not get
involved in many parole hearings. He recommended speaking
with Jeff Edwards from the Parole Board.
4:36:30 PM
Representative Pruitt referred to the topic of aggravators
and spoke about a situation where a weapon or gun was the
element of a crime. He surmised an aggravator would not be
used if it was the basis of the crime. For example, if a
drive by shooting occurred, but a person was not hit or
killed, the crime would be a Class C felony, but an
aggravator would not be used if the gun was the element of
the crime. He asked for verification that under current law
the perpetrator in the scenario could potentially receive
no jailtime for a first-time offense.
Mr. Skidmore agreed, but used a different example. He
explained that assault in the third degree involved a
perpetrator placing another person in fear of imminent
serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument.
He cited Alaska appellate case Linn v. State 658 P.2d 150
from 1983 that specifically stated an aggravator could not
be used to enhance a sentence if the aggravator was also an
element of the offense. In the case of his example, it was
the use of the dangerous instrument. It was necessary to
evaluate whether something was an element of the offense to
begin with.
4:39:10 PM
Co-Chair Seaton returned to the topic of the parole timing
for individuals in jail for murder. He stated that for
murder in the second degree - 15 years. He surmised that
discretionary parole could not be requested before 15 years
and it could not be requested before 30 years for murder in
the first degree.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the mandatory minimums were
correct. He cautioned that the mandatory minimums applied
to crimes that had occurred since SB 91 went into effect.
For crimes occurring prior to the SB 91 effective date, it
was not possible to increase a sentence after a crime had
occurred.
4:40:15 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked that if the crime had occurred
previously the crime would have been 10 years for murder in
the second degree and 20 years for murder [in the first
degree] before a first request for a discretionary hearing.
He stated that if there had been a longer sentence the
timeframe could be longer. For example, for a 90-year
sentence, one-third of the sentence would be 30 years.
Mr. Skidmore replied that Co-Chair Seaton was correct. It
would be necessary to take one-third of the imposed
sentence and determine whether the mandatory minimum one-
third of the sentence was longer. Whichever period was
longer controlled when the first hearing would occur. The
two years was about the frequency the hearings could occur
after the first hearing.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification it would not be the
first hearing, but the first application for a hearing.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the conversation was about when
a person became eligible for discretionary parole. He
clarified that if a person applied for a hearing, they
would get the hearing. The hearing did not mean the person
would be released.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that in many cases it was a longer
period before a person could ask for discretionary parole
because the mandatory minimums were increased in SB 91. He
thought it possible that a testifier from the previous
evening had believed a perpetrator did not have to wait for
the full mandatory minimum (e.g. 30 years for murder in the
first degree) to ask for discretionary parole. He believed
the individual thought good-time was subtracted from the 30
years, which was untrue. He clarified it was a minimum of
30 years [for murder in the first degree].
Mr. Skidmore relayed that good time did not have an impact
on when someone was eligible for discretionary parole.
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
4:43:16 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 HFIN DLAW Presentation - Oct 31 2017.pdf |
HFIN 10/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HFIN LAW AG Presehntation SB 54 SB 54 |
| SB 54 Crime in Alaska Report.pdf |
HFIN 10/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB54 ASAP -DHSS House Finance presentation 103117.pdf |
HFIN 10/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 CRIME RATE TRENDS 2014-2016 HOUSE FINANCE.pdf |
HFIN 10/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |