Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/12/2010 01:30 PM FINANCE


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
--Recessed to Call of Chair to 4/13/10--
+ SB 110 PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 110(FIN) Out of Committee
+ SB 222 SEX OFFENSES; OFFENDER REGIS.; SENTENCING TELECONFERENCED
+ HB 324 FAILURE TO APPEAR; RELEASE PROCEDURES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 324(FIN) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 283 PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 283(FIN) Out of Committee
<Bill Held Over from 8:00 Meeting>
+= HB 126 FOSTER CARE/CINA/EDUCATION OF HOMELESS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 126(FIN) Out of Committee
<Bill Held Over from 8:00 Meeting>
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 12, 2010                                                                                            
                         1:45 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:45:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze called the  House Finance Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:45 p.m.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair                                                                                      
Representative Allan Austerman                                                                                                  
Representative Mike Doogan                                                                                                      
Representative Anna Fairclough                                                                                                  
Representative Neal Foster                                                                                                      
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Reggie Joule                                                                                                     
Representative Mike Kelly                                                                                                       
Representative Woodie Salmon                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
None                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Hollis  French,  Sponsor;  Dan  Sullivan,  Attorney                                                                    
General,  Department of  Law; Sue  McLean, Public  Defender,                                                                    
Department  of   Law;  Richard  Svobodny,   Deputy  Attorney                                                                    
General,  Criminal Division,  Department of  Law; Orin  Dym,                                                                    
Forensic  Laboratory Manager,  Department of  Public Safety;                                                                    
Quinlan  Steiner,  Public  Defender  Agency,  Department  of                                                                    
Administration;  Quinlan  Steiner, Public  Defender  Agency,                                                                    
Department  of Administration;  Whitney Brewster,  Director,                                                                    
Division  of Motor  Vehicles, Department  of Administration;                                                                    
Jan   Rutherdale,   Attorney,  Child   Protection   Section,                                                                    
Department  of Law;  Alison  Elgee, Assistant  Commissioner,                                                                    
Finance and  Management Services,  Department of  Health and                                                                    
Social Services.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jeffrey Mittman, Executive Director, American Civil                                                                             
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska; Amanda Metivier, Facing                                                                       
Foster Care in Alaska.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 126    FOSTER CARE/CINA/EDUCATION OF HOMELESS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          CSHB 126(FIN)  was REPORTED out of  Committee with                                                                    
          a  "do  pass"  recommendation  and  with  attached                                                                    
          previously published fiscal  notes: FN4 (DHS), FN5                                                                    
          (DHS), FN6 (DHS).                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 283    PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          CSHB 283(FIN)  was REPORTED out of  Committee with                                                                    
          a "do  pass" recommendation and with  attached new                                                                    
          fiscal note  by the Department  of Administration,                                                                    
          new  zero  note  by  the Department  of  Law,  and                                                                    
          previously published fiscal note: FN3 (DHS.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 324    FAILURE TO APPEAR; RELEASE PROCEDURES                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          CSHB 324 was REPORTED out  of Committee with a "do                                                                    
          pass"  recommendation and  with attached  new zero                                                                    
          note   by   the  Department   of   Administration,                                                                    
          attached  new  zero  note  by  the  House  Finance                                                                    
          Committee  for  the   Alaska  Courts  System,  and                                                                    
          previously published fiscal  notes: FN1 (ADM), FN3                                                                    
          (COR), FN4 (LAW), and FN5 (DPS).                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 110 (FIN)                                                                                                                  
         PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          HCSCSSB  110(FIN) was  REPORTED  out of  Committee                                                                    
          with a "do pass"  recommendation and with attached                                                                    
          new zero  note by the House  Finance Committee for                                                                    
          Department of Law  and previously published fiscal                                                                    
          notes: FN4 (DPS) and FN5 (DPS).                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 222 (JUD)                                                                                                                  
          SEX OFFENSES; OFFENDER REGIS.; SENTENCING                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (Minutes  found  in  HFIN   041310  0818  AM,  the                                                                    
          4/13/10 continuation of this meeting.)                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          CSSB 222(JUD)  was REPORTED out of  Committee with                                                                    
          a  "do  pass"  recommendation  and  with  two  new                                                                    
          indeterminate  fiscal   notes  by   Department  of                                                                    
          Administration  and  previously  published  fiscal                                                                    
          notes: FN2  (COR), FN4 (LAW),  FN5 (CRT),  and FN7                                                                    
          (DPS).                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:46:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(FIN)                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to the preservation of evidence and                                                                       
     to the DNA identification system."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:46:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HOLLIS  FRENCH,  SPONSOR,   discussed  SB  110.  He                                                                    
explained  that  the  proposed  legislation  addresses  post                                                                    
conviction   Deoxyribonucleic   Acid   (DNA)   testing.   He                                                                    
commended his  Chief of staff,  Cindy Smith who  initiated a                                                                    
series  of events  allowing for  provisions that  move crime                                                                    
bills through  the process. The  governor introduced  a bill                                                                    
this  year  with  similar  issues  in  respect  to  evidence                                                                    
preservation. The  DNA provisions  from the  governor's bill                                                                    
are inserted into  SB 110. He highlighted Section  3, Page 3                                                                    
regarding  evidence  preservation.  In the  past  rural  law                                                                    
enforcement agencies were tasked  with storing large amounts                                                                    
of  evidence. With  SB 110,  an  agency is  not required  to                                                                    
preserve physical  evidence for a  crime that is of  a size,                                                                    
bulk,   quantity,  or   physical   character  that   renders                                                                    
preservation    impracticable.    If   the    evidence    is                                                                    
impracticable, the bill asks the  agency to grab those small                                                                    
portions of  biological evidence that  may be useful  in the                                                                    
future to  allow for a  claim of innocence or  conviction if                                                                    
necessary.  He   noted  the  language  insertion   from  the                                                                    
Department of Law (DOL) "or  until 50 years passes" allowing                                                                    
a  limit with  respect to  the  amount of  time evidence  is                                                                    
retained in  storage. The Alaska  Native Justice  Center was                                                                    
added to the  task force. He noted that the  task force will                                                                    
provide good feedback in respect to evidence preservation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:51:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator French  discussed provisions on post  conviction DNA                                                                    
testing.  Individuals  in  prison  can  assert  a  claim  of                                                                    
innocence because  of DNA  evidence that  may not  have been                                                                    
considered  or available  during  conviction. The  provision                                                                    
ensures  that  no  innocent individual  is  retained  in  an                                                                    
Alaska  prison.  He explained  that  SB  110 is  modeled  on                                                                    
Federal post  conviction DNA statutes, which  were passed in                                                                    
2004  by a  republican  congress. He  opined  that the  bill                                                                    
struck  the  proper  balance  between  civil  liberties  and                                                                    
protection of  the public order.  Changes to HB  316 include                                                                    
the deletion  of language requiring applicants  to cover the                                                                    
cost  of  evidence  retrieval.  Timeliness  provisions  were                                                                    
changed in  that current prisoners  have ten years  from the                                                                    
passage  of  the  bill  to   initiate  a  claim.  Provisions                                                                    
regarding guilt  where the applicant did  not conceive guilt                                                                    
under oath  in an official  proceeding can be waived  by the                                                                    
court  in  the  interest   of  justice.  He  explained  that                                                                    
innocent  people   sometimes  plead  guilty  to   crimes.  A                                                                    
requirement asking  for an  attorney affidavit  was deleted.                                                                    
New  language in  Section 10  states that  the proposed  DNA                                                                    
testing of  the specific  evidence may produce  new material                                                                    
that one would support the theory raised by the defense.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAN SULLIVAN,  ATTORNEY GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT OF  LAW, sought                                                                    
guidance from  the House Finance  Committee about  the three                                                                    
bills  presented  by  the governor.  He  provided  testimony                                                                    
during  the first  week of  session regarding  the ten  year                                                                    
comprehensive  plan  to  address  the  problem  of  domestic                                                                    
violence and  sexual assault  in Alaska.  He noted  that the                                                                    
way to  combat the epidemic  of sexual assault  and domestic                                                                    
violence is  with a  ten year  strategic plan.  He mentioned                                                                    
that the  help of the  legislature has been  instrumental in                                                                    
the initiative process. He focused  on the implementation of                                                                    
the plan  as a key  aspect of the initiative.  The strategic                                                                    
objective  is  focused on  changing  the  culture through  a                                                                    
comprehensive education and  prevention campaign promoting a                                                                    
culture  of   respect.  He  noted  the   importance  of  law                                                                    
enforcement  for interested  communities.  He discussed  the                                                                    
issue of  victim services availability. A  summit of lawyers                                                                    
to  increase the  legal services  via pro  bono work  is one                                                                    
potential solution.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:00:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.   Sullivan   mentioned   the  legislation   before   the                                                                    
committee.  He recalled  SB 222,  SB 110  and HB  324, which                                                                    
have  been improved  by  this body.  He  requested that  the                                                                    
bills go  out of  committee as a  package today.  He pointed                                                                    
out bail  reform as an  important issue. Alaska has  not had                                                                    
significant bail  reform since  the 1960s and  HB 324  is an                                                                    
effort to  "catch up" to  federal standards.  He highlighted                                                                    
four  key points  in  HB  324. The  first  point requires  a                                                                    
person  charged with  a serious  sex offense  to prove  that                                                                    
release conditions before trial  will protect the victim and                                                                    
the  public.  The  second point  prohibits  a  person  found                                                                    
guilty of a  serious sex offense from  being released before                                                                    
sentencing or  during an appeal  of a conviction.  The third                                                                    
point protects  the victims of domestic  violence by setting                                                                    
standards  that  the  court  must  find  before  allowing  a                                                                    
perpetrator of  domestic violence to return  to the victim's                                                                    
residence.  The fourth  point allows  more  time before  the                                                                    
defendant's  first appearance  in  court for  the police  to                                                                    
investigate and the prosecutor to  make an informed charging                                                                    
decision  to present  better bail  arguments and  to contact                                                                    
the victim so that they may  be present at the bail hearing.                                                                    
He  commented  on the  positive  demonstration  made by  the                                                                    
administration, the House Finance  Committee, and the Senate                                                                    
Judiciary  Committee.  He  complimented  the  various  staff                                                                    
members whose involvement created  a strong package of three                                                                    
bills  encompassing  important  components  of  the  overall                                                                    
strategic plan to end sexual assault and domestic violence.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:05:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUE MCLEAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT  OF LAW, stated that                                                                    
the testimony  from Senator French  was consistent  with the                                                                    
department's viewpoint.  She expressed a strong  interest in                                                                    
allowing a challenge  of convictions with the  advent of DNA                                                                    
testing.  She  stated that  SB  110  strikes an  appropriate                                                                    
balance.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD   SVOBODNY,   DEPUTY  ATTORNEY   GENERAL,   CRIMINAL                                                                    
DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT  OF  LAW, noted  that  the  department                                                                    
worked  well with  the administration  and Senator  French's                                                                    
district.  The requirements  for  obtaining post  conviction                                                                    
relief under the state statute  closely resemble the federal                                                                    
statute.  He pointed  out one  instance on  Page 6,  Line 28                                                                    
that does not  follow the federal statute in  which a person                                                                    
must be  incarcerated prior to post  conviction relief. With                                                                    
SB  110,  incarceration is  not  a  requirement. The  change                                                                    
allows  for the  increased availability  of post  conviction                                                                    
relief.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:09:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JEFFREY   MITTMAN,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   AMERICAN   CIVIL                                                                    
LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA, testified in favor of the bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  pointed out  two  fiscal  notes from  the                                                                    
Department of Public Safety (DPS) and one from DOL.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny explained  the $4000 fiscal note  from DOL. The                                                                    
court  of  appeals  created  standards  on  post  conviction                                                                    
relief,  but  DOL  believes   that  the  legislature  should                                                                    
determine standards  for Alaska.  The $4000 cost  allows the                                                                    
task force to impose standards  for the retention and return                                                                    
of evidence.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:13:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze detailed the zero  fiscal note from DPS and                                                                    
one zero fiscal note from the Senate Finance Committee.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY  MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC                                                                    
SAFETY, stated that the fiscal note  takes the form of a new                                                                    
crime  lab.  He explained  that  the  department has  gained                                                                    
efficiency  in   evidence  handling  and   evidence  storage                                                                    
providing reserves for the next two years.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker  asked about  the fiscal  note from  DOL. He                                                                    
asked if  the funding  would be  absorbed into  the existing                                                                    
budget   authority.   Mr.   Svobodny  responded   that   the                                                                    
department could absorb the  cost. Co-Chair Hawker commended                                                                    
the frugality of  the zero fiscal note.  Mr. Svobodny agreed                                                                    
to present the note as a zero fiscal note.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:16:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  moved  AMENDMENT 1.  Co-Chair  Stoltze                                                                    
OBJECTED.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Amendment One                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Delete "(A) is not inconsistent with a defense                                                                             
     presented at trial; and (B)"                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara spoke  to the  amendment. He  explained                                                                    
one outstanding  issue on Page  8, Line 19 addressed  by the                                                                    
amendment. This section of the  bill states that if a person                                                                    
is innocent  and able  to prove it  with DNA  evidence, then                                                                    
the person will  no longer be in jail. He  wished to prevent                                                                    
any additional road  blocks for an innocent  person. The DNA                                                                    
evidence  is   present  for  the   person  who   is  wrongly                                                                    
convicted.  He noted  the list  of ten  points that  must be                                                                    
illustrated to prove  innocence. If Line 19  is not amended,                                                                    
then an  innocent person  charged on  misidentification, who                                                                    
chooses  a  plea  of  self  defense  as  recommended  by  an                                                                    
attorney,  will not  be  eligible for  the  benefits of  DNA                                                                    
testing.  The  amendment  states  that  an  innocent  person                                                                    
cannot  be  punished  for  a  decision  made  by  the  trial                                                                    
attorney.  He provided  a hypothetical  case  in which  this                                                                    
amendment would prove necessary.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:21:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. McLean  noted that  a balance  must be  obtained between                                                                    
assuring that an innocent person  could utilize DNA evidence                                                                    
testing and those who might use  the new law to perpetrate a                                                                    
fraud  on the  court.  Normally in  self  defense cases  the                                                                    
defendant would testify  that he acted in  self defense. She                                                                    
added that if a defendant had  a lawyer that talked him into                                                                    
a fraudulent plea, then he has  an opportunity to file for a                                                                    
petition  for   a  post  conviction  relief   based  on  the                                                                    
ineffective   assistance   of   counsel   leading   to   his                                                                    
conviction.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara clarified  that all  circumstances must                                                                    
be  covered  to truly  achieve  a  balance. He  argued  that                                                                    
balance is impossible if a person cannot use DNA evidence.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:23:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
General  Sullivan responded  that the  bill does  comprise a                                                                    
balance. He noted  that the language states  that the theory                                                                    
of  defense is  inconsistent,  which  provides some  "wiggle                                                                    
room."  The language  achieves the  balance  in the  federal                                                                    
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan  understood that  if a person  chose a                                                                    
plea  and lost  then  they  are rendered  unable  to file  a                                                                    
petition for  post conviction relief. He  did not understand                                                                    
how  amendment one  would negatively  affect  any person  or                                                                    
entity  involved. Mr.  Svobodny  responded  that most  trial                                                                    
lawyers  seek the  truth.   Representative Doogan  commented                                                                    
that the  person on  trial does  not pay  the price  in this                                                                    
circumstance. His attorney makes the decision.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:29:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny stated that he  was a prior public defender and                                                                    
he never advised a person to  run a defense that was untrue.                                                                    
He  recalled instances  where a  defendant  requested a  new                                                                    
lawyer because the current lawyer  would not defend based on                                                                    
the story  provided by the  defendant. He believed  that the                                                                    
courts  should  strive  to  tell the  truth  as  opposed  to                                                                    
misleading people.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan stated that  the goal of the amendment                                                                    
is  to prove  innocence and  tell the  truth. He  noted that                                                                    
without  this, prosecutors  will return  to court  and allow                                                                    
for  further  DNA  testing.  He  cited  that  the  DNA  test                                                                    
provides infallible proof.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:31:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Austerman asked  if chapter  73 of  the bill                                                                    
was based federal law. Senator  French answered yes; chapter                                                                    
73 is largely patterned after post conviction DNA statutes.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:33:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  stressed that  a  lawyer  can help  an                                                                    
innocent  person use  DNA evidence  to prove  that they  are                                                                    
innocent.  He  clarified  that  his  hypothetical  situation                                                                    
addressed an  innocent person.  He requested  testimony from                                                                    
the department.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:35:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN  STEINER,  PUBLIC  DEFENDER  AGENCY,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION, commented that  the amendment addresses both                                                                    
section  seven   and  eight.   Section  eight   details  the                                                                    
requirement  of  the   perpetrator's  identity  disputed  at                                                                    
trial. Subsection  eight requires  that the court  find that                                                                    
the  applicant  was  convicted   after  a  trial,  which  is                                                                    
inconsistent with another section  of the bill which permits                                                                    
a  post  conviction DNA  relief  after  a guilty  plea.  The                                                                    
defense  attorney could  make a  reasonable decision  to run                                                                    
self defense, which creates an ethical dilemma.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:38:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara asked if  there were circumstances where                                                                    
an  attorney acting  in  good faith  would  run one  defense                                                                    
during trial and later be  precluded from using DNA evidence                                                                    
to prove that  the client was innocent.  Mr. Steiner replied                                                                    
yes, the most obvious example  is a self defense claim which                                                                    
identifies the defendant  as the person who  created the act                                                                    
with  eyewitnesses stating  that  the person  was acting  in                                                                    
self  defense. A  defense  attorney may  elect  to run  self                                                                    
defense rather  than an  identification defense  despite the                                                                    
fact that  the client  denies presence at  the scene  of the                                                                    
crime. The decision rests exclusively with the attorney.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker commented on the  debate. He stated that his                                                                    
aide  is  supportive  of the  amendment.  He  asked  Senator                                                                    
French about the amendment and the balance of concerns.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:41:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  French responded  that research  shows the  federal                                                                    
statute is the gold standard.  He stated that he approved of                                                                    
the bill without change.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Hawker  asked  the Attorney  General  his  opinion                                                                    
about amendment one.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
General  Sullivan stated  that  each  provision requires  an                                                                    
element of balance. He sought  to strike the proper balance.                                                                    
The procedures are intended to  prevent the incarceration of                                                                    
innocent  people. He  respected the  concerns raised  in the                                                                    
amendment, but the procedures are a balance in judgment.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:44:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Fairclough  spoke to the example  provided by                                                                    
Representative Gara.  She wondered  if the  defense attorney                                                                    
would have considered  DNA evidence prior to  the trial. She                                                                    
was unsure how the DNA  evidence was obtained once the trial                                                                    
ended.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Steiner  responded  that similar  decisions  were  made                                                                    
prior to  sophisticated DNA  testing allowing  for strategic                                                                    
reasons  to forgo  testing. An  attorney must  make judgment                                                                    
calls regarding the evidence's  likelihood of success, which                                                                    
includes questioning the defendant's testimony.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  stated that  the sophistication  of DNA                                                                    
evidence is recent and unprecedented.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:47:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker informed that court  officers intend to make                                                                    
good decisions and are seeking  justice. People in the court                                                                    
system  are  not  always  part   of  the  judiciary  system.                                                                    
Occasionally immigrants  might not  feel comfortable  in the                                                                    
judicial system. This  person may seek the  best option out.                                                                    
He explained that the defense  mechanism could be the result                                                                    
of fear or lack of  understanding of the judicial system. He                                                                    
wondered if the requirement might be inconsistent.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:51:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Steiner commented that the  amendment may not completely                                                                    
address the  issue. Subsection eight requires  that identity                                                                    
be disputed and works in concert with Section seven.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Joule  commented  that all  native  Alaskans                                                                    
look alike  to some people.  He wondered how the  issue fits                                                                    
in to the amendment.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Senator  French  stated that  the  DNA  testing might  truly                                                                    
exonerate the defendant only with  an eyewitness that proves                                                                    
that  the blood  on the  victim fell  on the  defendant. The                                                                    
police would  test any blood  found on the victim.  In order                                                                    
for DNA  evidence to  exonerate the  defendant the  blood on                                                                    
the victim would require testing.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
General Sullivan  commented that the  hypothetical situation                                                                    
assumes that  the person  is innocent and  the blood  is not                                                                    
presented at trial.  He pointed out that  a defense attorney                                                                    
might wisely avoid DNA testing, but  then seek it out in the                                                                    
event of a conviction.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:56:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kelly asked how  many states have adopted the                                                                    
federal approach. Senator French did not know the answer.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Gara   explained  that   his   hypothetical                                                                    
situation  included  a  pre   DNA  evidence  conviction.  He                                                                    
accepted  that  many people  do  not  fit the  hypothetical,                                                                    
although  if the  amendment allows  one  innocent person  to                                                                    
leave jail, then he will be content.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan  asked to  know the potential  harm of                                                                    
the amendment if passed.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:59:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.   McLean  responded   that  the   amendment  opens   the                                                                    
opportunity for those  who are not in fact  innocent and are                                                                    
continually  bringing  various  motions on  other  theories.                                                                    
The harm is that the trial and appeals have occurred.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan asked if  the amendment would harm the                                                                    
lawyer.  He noted  that the  provision removed  includes the                                                                    
words "I did not do it."  Ms. McLean answered that those who                                                                    
present  a defensive  alibi yet  were guilty  can now  use a                                                                    
plea  of self  defense.  She  stated that  the  harm is  the                                                                    
manipulation  of the  system making  it  more difficult  for                                                                    
those people seeking access to the system.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan reminded  that  a DNA  test does  not                                                                    
allow for a conviction change.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:02:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
General  Sullivan  clarified that  he  is  not admitting  to                                                                    
administrative  convenience.  He  thought the  harm  to  the                                                                    
system   was  in   allowing  new   theories   that  may   be                                                                    
inconsistent with previous  theories and thereby encouraging                                                                    
a form of "crapshoot justice."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Doogan   expressed   dissatisfaction   with                                                                    
further argument versus an answer  to his question regarding                                                                    
the  potential  harm  of  the  amendment.  He  repeated  the                                                                    
question "what is the harm in the amendment?"                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough  pointed  out  the  cost  to  the                                                                    
state's  investment  in  correctional  facilities  when  DNA                                                                    
evidence is utilized.  The harm to the system  is that state                                                                    
dollars  would be  spent to  test theory  after theory.  She                                                                    
recalled an appeal process addressed in the CS.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:07:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  French  referred to  Page  9,  which addresses  the                                                                    
summary  dismissal if  a  person does  not  comply with  the                                                                    
requirements of the discussed provisions.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  McLean added  that citizens  always have  the right  to                                                                    
appeal a court order.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara concluded that  if the amendment passes,                                                                    
a person must present the  affidavit and illustrate that the                                                                    
DNA evidence  will prove innocence.  If there was  prior DNA                                                                    
evidence, the defendant must illustrate  the reason that the                                                                    
new  DNA evidence  is  superior. The  DNA  evidence must  be                                                                    
proposed  as  sound  and  valid. The  balance  will  be  the                                                                    
inconvenience  of rotten  people who  abuse the  system, but                                                                    
for   an   innocent  person   who   might   not  have   been                                                                    
sophisticated  enough   to  insist   on  the   best  defense                                                                    
possible,  the  amendment  could  make  the  difference.  He                                                                    
continued that  he felt that  the bill was good  with strong                                                                    
standards and many hoops to  jump through prior to utilizing                                                                    
DNA evidence.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: 6                                                                                                                     
OPPOSED: 5                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Amendment one was ADOPTED.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:12:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report  HCSCSSB 110(FIN) as amended                                                                    
out  of Committee  with individual  recommendations and  the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal notes. There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HCSCSSB 110(FIN)  was REPORTED out  of Committee with  a "do                                                                    
pass"  recommendation and  with attached  new zero  notes by                                                                    
the  House  Finance  Committee for  Department  of  Law  and                                                                    
previously published fiscal notes: FN4 (DPS) and FN5 (DPS).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 324                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act  relating to  the crime  of failure  to appear;                                                                    
     relating to arrest for  violating certain conditions of                                                                    
     release;  relating  to  release  before  trial,  before                                                                    
     sentence,  and  pending  appeal; relating  to  material                                                                    
     witnesses; relating  to temporary release;  relating to                                                                    
     release on a petition  to revoke probation; relating to                                                                    
     the first  appearance before  a judicial  officer after                                                                    
     arrest;  relating to  service of  process for  domestic                                                                    
     violence    protective   orders;    making   conforming                                                                    
     amendments; amending  Rules 5  and 41, Alaska  Rules of                                                                    
     Criminal  Procedure,  and  Rules 206  and  603,  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of Appellate  Procedure;  and  providing for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:13:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Hawker  moved  to  adopt  work  draft  26-GH2910\S                                                                    
Luckhaupt 4/11/10.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny  stated that  Section 1 of  the bill  moves the                                                                    
offense  of failure  to appear  in  court from  Title 12  to                                                                    
Title 11. The  current bail bill was passed in  1966 and has                                                                    
not  been  updated  or  moved when  the  criminal  code  was                                                                    
revised in  1978 by the  legislature. The section  moves the                                                                    
location of the  crime from the criminal section  of the law                                                                    
to  the criminal  law. The  state must  prove that  a person                                                                    
knew that  they must  appear in  court. This  bill clarifies                                                                    
that  we are  not able  to prove  the negative.  The section                                                                    
does not refer to strict  liability which means that despite                                                                    
a person's excuse, if a  law is broken, they are prosecuted.                                                                    
The law here provides an affirmative defense.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny continued  with Section 2. He  pointed out that                                                                    
the section allows  for police arrest without  a warrant for                                                                    
violating a condition of release.  Section 3 establishes the                                                                    
procedures for  obtaining bail in  any particular  case. The                                                                    
section  aligns  with  present   bail  conditions  and  adds                                                                    
conditions deemed appropriate by the court system.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:19:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny  stated that  the  section  requires a  person                                                                    
released  from court  to be  released on  bail or  their own                                                                    
recognizance. The signed conditions  of release can cost the                                                                    
court system time in the  state's view. For important events                                                                    
the  state  requires  a  signature  for  the  conditions  of                                                                    
release. A  provision where a  judge can change bail  at any                                                                    
time he or she deems appropriate is dropped.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:22:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny  noted that the  process describes  the various                                                                    
circumstances regarding  appropriate conditions  of release.                                                                    
He pointed  out Section  4 and the  burden of  persuasion or                                                                    
proceedings which establishes that  the state has the burden                                                                    
of proving  the person is  a threat to society.  A defendant                                                                    
must go  forward to show that  they are not a  danger to the                                                                    
community.  When   the  charge   before  the  court   is  an                                                                    
unclassified felony,  the defendant must show  the court why                                                                    
they  are likely  to appear  or why  they do  not present  a                                                                    
danger  to  the community.  The  next  situation includes  a                                                                    
previous  felony offense  which  is included  in  the CS.  A                                                                    
person seeking bail while engrossed  in another case on bail                                                                    
must  come  forward  to  prove  that  they  can  follow  the                                                                    
conditions release.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny  noted that Section  4 addresses  situations of                                                                    
extradition.  He commented  on the  debate about  bail in  a                                                                    
case  of   extradition.  Alaskan   courts  have   held  that                                                                    
following a  governor's warrant there is  not bail following                                                                    
a   case  of   extradition.  A   person  who   fled  another                                                                    
jurisdiction may flee the current  one or may prove a danger                                                                    
to the  community. Evidence can  be presented on  the normal                                                                    
conditions of release if a court can be convinced.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny discussed  special  conditions  that apply  in                                                                    
special  cases. He  noted specific  provisions for  specific                                                                    
crimes.  For alcohol  related crimes,  the court  can impose                                                                    
certain conditions.  He pointed  out special  provisions for                                                                    
crimes that involve drug offenses.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:32:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny continued with Section  5 and the protection of                                                                    
the  public.  A  third  party  custodian  might  be  issued.                                                                    
Standards for  the appointment of third  party custodians do                                                                    
not  yet  exist.  He  provided an  example.  The  bill  does                                                                    
contain exclusions  for people  who are seeking  third party                                                                    
custodians.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara suggested  that the  sectional analysis                                                                    
be reserved for questions.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:35:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Svobodny stated  that the Court of  Appeals overturned a                                                                    
decision  made by  the legislature  about a  prohibition for                                                                    
people charged with committing a  crime of domestic violence                                                                    
that resolves  the dispute.  The law  requires a  twenty day                                                                    
cooling off period.  The defendant must show  that they will                                                                    
not  present  a danger  to  the  person. Currently  the  law                                                                    
states that a  person must be brought before  a court within                                                                    
twenty four  hours to  set bail, but  this bill  changes the                                                                    
time to forty eight hours.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:37:40 PM     AT EASE                                                                                                        
3:39:33 PM     RECONVENED                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN  STEINER,  PUBLIC  DEFENDER  AGENCY,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION,  commented  page  seven, line  eight,  which                                                                    
could impact the  agency in terms of the  conduction of bail                                                                    
hearings.  If  judges  interpret  the section  in  a  highly                                                                    
technical  manner,  the  change would  require  the  defense                                                                    
council  to use  evidence related  to the  defense to  rebut                                                                    
that   presumption.  The   section   could  be   interpreted                                                                    
differently, but if elected,  defense attorneys are required                                                                    
to make  a decision.  He commented  on Page  12, Line  13 in                                                                    
which defense  is required to  use evidence about  the event                                                                    
itself  to meet  the  burden  that might  commit  them to  a                                                                    
defense of the disclosure of defense theories and evidence.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Thomas asked  if Mr. Steiner had  spoken with the                                                                    
sponsors  of  the  bill  about  his  concerns.  Mr.  Steiner                                                                    
responded yes.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny  responded  that   a  person  must  illustrate                                                                    
whether they are a danger  to various entities. He continued                                                                    
with  Page  12,  Line  13 the  addresses  domestic  violence                                                                    
situations and cooling off period.  The section allows for a                                                                    
finding that the  court must make in  the circumstances with                                                                    
a domestic case.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:46:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEFFREY   MITTMAN,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   AMERICAN   CIVIL                                                                    
LIBERTIES  UNION  (ACLU)  OF  ALASKA  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
expressed    ACLU's   concerns    with   respect    to   the                                                                    
constitutionality  of   the  bill.   He  noted   that  prior                                                                    
correspondence with the Judiciary  Committee has been placed                                                                    
on the  BASIS system  in the  documents section.  He pointed                                                                    
out  Page 3,  Lines 23  which  encompasses the  change to  a                                                                    
forty eight  hour period for  an initial hearing.  He stated                                                                    
that ACLU believes  that the standard of 24  hours in Alaska                                                                    
is effective  and it may  be unreasonable to  statutorily or                                                                    
legislatively change  from a  24 hour to  a 48  hour period.                                                                    
Page 5, Line 23-24 along with  Page 6, Lines 12-15 allow for                                                                    
conditions that  enable the court  to mandate that  a person                                                                    
maintain   employment  or   that  they   follow  a   medical                                                                    
provider's treatment.  These requirements apply to  a person                                                                    
that has  been charged  but not  yet convicted  making their                                                                    
rights  those  of  an  innocent   person.  He  believed  the                                                                    
requirement  unconstitutional as  a judicial  mandate on  an                                                                    
individual  who  is  not yet  under  court  supervision.  He                                                                    
continued with Page  7, lines 8 and 9, which  is the area of                                                                    
greatest concern for the ACLU.  The Alaska constitution sets                                                                    
forth that  a person  has a  right to  bail. To  reverse the                                                                    
statute   by   legislative    action   is   constitutionally                                                                    
inappropriate.  He  commented  that the  exception  for  the                                                                    
presumption  of  bail was  with  capital  offense where  the                                                                    
evidence is great. That high  standard governs and to create                                                                    
a rebuttable presumption would  prove improper. He continued                                                                    
with Page  8, Lines 8-28  which include the mandate  that an                                                                    
individual would be  required to submit to  a search without                                                                    
a warrant.  He continued  with Page 10,  Line 15-19  and the                                                                    
imposition of third party  custodian status. The presumption                                                                    
for bail is that a person  is entitled to bail and the court                                                                    
imposition  of conditions  should  be  less restrictive.  He                                                                    
recommended  additional   language  stating  that   a  court                                                                    
finding of an  imposition of a third party  custodian is the                                                                    
least restrictive means to assure  that a person appears for                                                                    
the safety of the victim.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:52:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  asked   about  the  unconstitutional                                                                    
nature of the bill.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny  addressed  the   concerns  presented  by  Mr.                                                                    
Mittman. He  addressed the initial concern  about the change                                                                    
from 24  to 48 hours. He  noted that Alaska is  one of three                                                                    
states with a  24 hour requirement. He pointed  out that the                                                                    
Supreme Court agreed to 72 hour limits.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny addressed  Mr. Mittman's  complaints regarding                                                                    
conditions  of   bail  including   use  of   medication  are                                                                    
conditions  commonly set  by the  court.  Often, people  are                                                                    
incarcerated   that  have   mental   illness  or   diabetes.                                                                    
Conditions of  release are typically  set by the court  at a                                                                    
hearing where  there has  been a  finding of  probable cause                                                                    
that a person has committed the  crime. The court then has a                                                                    
responsibility about  the least restrictive  alternative for                                                                    
the  person.  The  law  presumes that  the  person  will  be                                                                    
released  on their  own recognizance  unless they  present a                                                                    
danger to flee  or a danger to the victim  or the community.                                                                    
The  judge  must then  establish  conditions  of release  to                                                                    
protect the interests of the people.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny  continued with  Page  7,  Lines  8 and  9.  A                                                                    
presumption includes  the person who proves  the proposition                                                                    
that  a  person  is  a  flight  risk  or  a  danger  to  the                                                                    
community. The presumption  is found in the  federal law and                                                                    
many other states.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:59:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
General Sullivan  stated that HB  324 is the  most important                                                                    
legislation  this session  since  bail  legislation has  not                                                                    
been reformed since the 1950s.  He acknowledged the value of                                                                    
victims' safety.  He commented that  if a community  has the                                                                    
guts to  put a person  in jail and  he is eligible  for bail                                                                    
that places innocent  people at risk. He  outlined the broad                                                                    
approach  to  the  issue  of  bail.  He  believed  that  the                                                                    
provisions  were  important  as   they  promote  safety.  He                                                                    
believed  that  the  presumption issue  suggested  that  the                                                                    
state must  keep up  with the  federal rules.  He emphasized                                                                    
that the  approaches in the  bill were important  to keeping                                                                    
Alaskan communities and victims safer.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:05:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan requested  clarification on the issue.                                                                    
Mr.  Svobodny responded  that every  person has  a right  to                                                                    
bail. If  the state  notes that a  person is  dangerous then                                                                    
the right to bail is  limited. The presumption shifts when a                                                                    
defendant  can prove  that  they are  not  flight risks.  He                                                                    
referred to Page  8, Line 28 and the  reference to searches.                                                                    
He  clarified  that  the  police   cannot  search  a  person                                                                    
indiscriminately. The law  states "to submit to  a search of                                                                    
the  defendant's personal  property, residence,  vehicle, or                                                                    
any vehicle  over which  the defendant  has control  for the                                                                    
possession of  alcoholic beverage or illegal  drugs and drug                                                                    
paraphernalia by a peace officer  has a reasonable suspicion                                                                    
that   the  defendant   is  violating   the  terms   of  the                                                                    
defendant's bail release."  If there is a  nexus between the                                                                    
condition and the  crime, conditions of bail  release can be                                                                    
imposed including searches based upon reasonable suspicion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Svobodny addressed  the  question  regarding the  third                                                                    
party custodian. He noted that  a third party custodian is a                                                                    
tool the  judge uses  to retain  the defendant.  Third party                                                                    
custodians  exist  following  a court  finding  of  probable                                                                    
cause that the person has committed the crime.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:09:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  removed  his objection.  There  being  NO                                                                    
OBJECTION, it was so ordered and Version S was ADOPTED.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Kelly  asked about Page 7  and the rebuttable                                                                    
presumption.   He  asked   about   other  state's   policies                                                                    
regarding rebuttable  presumption. Ms. McLean  answered that                                                                    
eleven states have expressly rebuttable presumption.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:12:29 PM     AT EASE                                                                                                        
4:13:32 PM     RECONVENE                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze noted all zero  fiscal notes except one for                                                                    
$50 thousand for the draft CS recently adopted.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Gara   explained   that   with   rebuttable                                                                    
presumption additional  time is  not necessary. He  MOVED to                                                                    
Zero out  the fiscal  note dated  4/12/10. The  $50 thousand                                                                    
was reduced to zero.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:16:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Thomas MOVED  to report  CSHB 324  (FIN) out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal notes. There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CSHB  324 was  REPORTED out  of Committee  with a  "do pass"                                                                    
recommendation  and  with  attached  new zero  note  by  the                                                                    
Department of Administration, attached  new zero note by the                                                                    
House Finance  Committee for the  Alaska Courts  System, and                                                                    
previously  published fiscal  notes: FN1  (ADM), FN3  (COR),                                                                    
FN4 (LAW), and FN5 (DPS).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:18:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 283                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to the purchasing of and restrictions                                                                     
     concerning alcoholic beverages."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:20:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WHITNEY  BREWSTER,  DIRECTOR,  DIVISION OF  MOTOR  VEHICLES,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF ADMINISTRATION,  spoke  to  the fiscal  note.                                                                    
Currently  the   Department  of  Motor  Vehicles   places  a                                                                    
restriction on a license when  a court order is received for                                                                    
driving under the influence of  alcohol or refusal offenses.                                                                    
She  understood   that  the  allowable  offenses   would  be                                                                    
broadened  to  include  any  offense  with  two  misdemeanor                                                                    
offenses  or  when  alcohol  has been  determined  to  be  a                                                                    
substantial  influence. She  explained  that the  department                                                                    
took approximately  8000 people  convicted of  a misdemeanor                                                                    
who have  had two  prior convictions and  added them  to the                                                                    
6000 felony convictions. Not all  judges will use an alcohol                                                                    
restriction as a  term of sentencing, nor  will all offenses                                                                    
be  alcohol  related.  The cost  of  license  production  is                                                                    
$2.50.  The   fiscal  note  for  $17.500   is  strictly  for                                                                    
supplies. She pointed  out the change in  revenue will equal                                                                    
$350 thousand.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:22:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker  MOVED to report  CSHB 283 out  of Committee                                                                    
with individual recommendations  and the accompanying fiscal                                                                    
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CSHB  283(FIN) was  REPORTED  out of  Committee  with a  "do                                                                    
pass" recommendation  and with  attached new fiscal  note by                                                                    
the  Department  of Administration,  new  zero  note by  the                                                                    
Department  of Law,  and previously  published fiscal  note:                                                                    
FN3 (DHS).                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 126                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to continuing  the secondary  public                                                                    
     education  of  a  homeless  student;  relating  to  the                                                                    
     purpose  of certain  laws as  they relate  to children;                                                                    
     relating  to   tuition  waivers,  loans,   and  medical                                                                    
     assistance for  a child placed  in out-of-home  care by                                                                    
     the  state;  relating  to   foster  care;  relating  to                                                                    
     children  in  need  of aid;  relating  to  foster  care                                                                    
     transition  to  independent  living;  and  relating  to                                                                    
     juvenile programs and institutions."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:24:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Hawker  moved  to   adopt  CSHB  126  26-LS0309\Q,                                                                    
Mishel, 4/9/10. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  informed  that HB  126  increases  the                                                                    
chance for the approximately 2000  foster youth in the state                                                                    
to  succeed   in  greater  numbers.  Similar   efforts  have                                                                    
occurred in many states. President  Bush signed a law called                                                                    
the   Fostering   Connections   Act   in   2008.   Fostering                                                                    
connections  recognized that  the former  foster care  model                                                                    
was  ineffective.  Some foster  youth  are  not prepared  to                                                                    
leave the  home environment  as early  as those  from stable                                                                    
families. The effort  in HB 126 is to extend  foster care to                                                                    
age  21   where  it  is   in  the  child's   best  interest.                                                                    
Educational  achievement  in  states providing  foster  care                                                                    
until a child  is 21 are twice as high  as those states that                                                                    
provide  foster care  until 18  years  of age.  He shared  a                                                                    
story  about  foster  youth  leaving home  at  age  19  with                                                                    
unsavory results. The cost for  extending foster care to age                                                                    
21  will  equal $470  thousand  per  year. Matching  federal                                                                    
funds are available under the Fostering Connections Act.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:28:26 PM     AT EASE                                                                                                        
4:53:41 PM     RECONVENE                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  discussed other provision in  the bill,                                                                    
which came  out of the  HESS committee. The co-chair  of the                                                                    
HESS  committee worked  on language  under Section  2. If  a                                                                    
foster child  has opted out  of state custody after  age 16,                                                                    
but  then desires  reentry the  standards in  Section 2  are                                                                    
used. He  pointed out  that a young  person must  prove that                                                                    
they are  in need of foster  care to avoid personal  harm or                                                                    
homelessness  or  to  enhance  the ability  to  continue  in                                                                    
education  or  successful  transition.  The  department  may                                                                    
request conditions prior to  reentry. Reasonable terms might                                                                    
include  an education  plan, a  job training  plan or  other                                                                    
reasonable terms deemed  so by the court. He  stated that he                                                                    
endeavored  to  expedite  the  process  by  eliminating  the                                                                    
requirement of  annual court status reports.  The Department                                                                    
of Law  opined that it was  best to retain the  annual court                                                                    
status reports.  He mentioned a  separate bill  section that                                                                    
is since unnecessary as is passed  as a separate bill on the                                                                    
House floor recently.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:57:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AMANDA  METIVIER,   FACING  FOSTER   CARE  IN   ALASKA  (via                                                                    
teleconference), stated  that for  youth who exceed  the age                                                                    
requirement  for  care  in  Alaska,  forty  percent  end  up                                                                    
homeless,  thirty percent  end up  incarcerated, and  a high                                                                    
rate  of early  pregnancy exists.  He explained  that foster                                                                    
care  extensions   beyond  age  18  create   better  overall                                                                    
outcomes  and those  children are  more  likely to  graduate                                                                    
high   school  and   receive  postsecondary   education  and                                                                    
training.  The  program  helps  youth  reenter  foster  care                                                                    
successfully.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze acknowledged  the substantial  support for                                                                    
the program.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
5:01:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough   asked  about   the  differences                                                                    
between the  CS and  the original bill.  Representative Gara                                                                    
discussed  an additional  provision  in  which the  Covenant                                                                    
House  faced a  problem  with federal  funding because  they                                                                    
housed greater than 20 people  and under federal law a state                                                                    
law must certify  that more than 20 people can  be housed. A                                                                    
separate  piece  of  legislation  was filed  by  the  Senate                                                                    
Health  and Social  Services (HSS)  committee, which  led to                                                                    
deletion of the issue from the CS.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  asked  which   section  of  the  bill  (Z                                                                    
version)  passed  the  HSS  committee.  Representative  Gara                                                                    
responded Page 3, Lines 14-18.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough asked  about  Page 2  of the  HSS                                                                    
version  beginning  on  Lines 3-23,  which  appears  as  new                                                                    
language.   Representative Gara responded that  the language                                                                    
is included  in the  CS currently  before the  committee. In                                                                    
the  Z version  of the  bill, the  court's one  year renewal                                                                    
period was  inadvertently removed but the  Q version inserts                                                                    
them. Beginning on  Line 9, Page 2 the  provision to reenter                                                                    
foster care  is found.  Specific language  listing standards                                                                    
was requested. He  stated that the language on  Page 3, Line                                                                    
2 of the current bill clearly  states "you're in need of out                                                                    
of home  care to avoid  personal harm or homelessness  or to                                                                    
enhance  the  person's  ability  to  continue  the  person's                                                                    
education  or training  or  otherwise  improve the  person's                                                                    
successful   transition  to   independent   living  and   if                                                                    
requested by  the department agrees to  reasonable terms for                                                                    
resuming state custody that may  include matters relating to                                                                    
the person's education, attainment of  a job, or life skills                                                                    
or other  terms found by the  court to be reasonable  and in                                                                    
the person's  best interest."   He noted that  DOL requested                                                                    
the use  of the word resume  to make clear that  the section                                                                    
referred to reentry into foster care.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:06:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough pointed  out that  Page three  of                                                                    
the Z version  shows bolded type different  from the version                                                                    
presented  to the  committee. She  noticed  words that  were                                                                    
removed,  but  she  did  not know  the  consequence  of  the                                                                    
removal  as compared  to the  recommendations  from the  HSS                                                                    
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara informed  that on Page 2, Line  9 of the                                                                    
Z version, the language, except  for the words "resume care"                                                                    
is the  same as the  new version  beginning on Page  2, Line                                                                    
14-24. One  change is some  language from Page 2,  Lines 4-6                                                                    
which addressed the old procedure  of the yearly hearing. He                                                                    
stated  that  the annual  review  for  younger children  was                                                                    
removed.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough requested  an explanation  of the                                                                    
difference on  Page 2, Line 11.  Representative Gara replied                                                                    
that  the language  between the  two  sections includes  the                                                                    
definition of  youth who left  care and wish to  reenter. He                                                                    
noted that DOL recommended new  language to define the group                                                                    
as people who  resume care. Before the  youth were described                                                                    
as "persons released  for a reason other  than court ordered                                                                    
reunification with  person's parent." The new  language asks                                                                    
if  the  children were  released  to  their own  custody  as                                                                    
stated on Page 2, Line 31.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Fairclough  noted  that  the  HSS  committee                                                                    
recommended that  the new language provides  an exception if                                                                    
the foster child were removed due to a court order.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
5:11:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara explained that  there was no substantive                                                                    
reason for the change. The  DOL intended to define the youth                                                                    
that leave care and then  seek reentry. The DOL advised that                                                                    
a  youth  released  to  a   youth's  own  custody  was  more                                                                    
informative language.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:12:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Kelly   recalled  the   late  Representative                                                                    
Richard  Foster's  great  support of  state  involvement  in                                                                    
foster care.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Thomas  requested  that the  Attorney  General's                                                                    
office speak to the questions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JAN   RUTHERDALE,   ATTORNEY,  CHILD   PROTECTION   SECTION,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,  stated that she was not  involved in the                                                                    
earlier  versions of  the bill,  but was  familiar with  the                                                                    
current version.  Substantively, the difference  between the                                                                    
two bills  is that the  new section  is lumped into  the old                                                                    
sections. The action of removing  the section and creating a                                                                    
new subsection  preserves the old  section. She  stated that                                                                    
the requirement is no longer  an annual return to court. She                                                                    
noted that the change provides a protection for the child.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Thomas asked  if the  different versions  of the                                                                    
bill  are  the  same.   Ms.  Rutherdale  informed  that  the                                                                    
difference addresses the annual  court review. In version Z,                                                                    
no court review  exists until the end of  the youth's foster                                                                    
care. This allows for a  yearly review. If the child changes                                                                    
their mind about the reentry, they can always petition.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  asked if  she followed  the debate  in the                                                                    
HSS committee. Ms. Rutherdale responded in the affirmative.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:17:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Fairclough   asked   if  there   were   any                                                                    
exceptions for release to their own  custody in the way of a                                                                    
court  order. Ms.  Rutherdale answered  that  the Version  Q                                                                    
explains that when  a child is released, it  is typically to                                                                    
their parents, commonly known as reunification.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Fairclough  stated that she is  supportive of                                                                    
the concept, but  was respectful of changes made  by the HSS                                                                    
committee. She  asked about potential  conceptual amendments                                                                    
made  to the  bill during  the HSS  committee hearings.  She                                                                    
expressed trepidation about the new  CS that does not have a                                                                    
HSS committee recommendation.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:20:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  responded  that the  language  in  HSS                                                                    
committee was  an express  written amendment.  The substance                                                                    
of the  standard of required  proof for reentry is  the same                                                                    
now  as it  was  in the  HSS committee.  He  noted that  the                                                                    
original  version  stated  that   reentry  was  possible  if                                                                    
economic hardship  was faced  by the  youth. He  stated that                                                                    
the  words   "economic  hardship"  were  removed   from  the                                                                    
version. The issue  in the HSS committee  was that standards                                                                    
for reentry were set.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:21:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ALISON   ELGEE,   ASSISTANT    COMMISSIONER,   FINANCE   AND                                                                    
MANAGEMENT  SERVICES,   DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH   AND  SOCIAL                                                                    
SERVICES, spoke to  the three fiscal notes.  She stated that                                                                    
the fiscal  notes for  the first year  comprise a  six month                                                                    
time period. The greatest of  the fiscal notes is the foster                                                                    
care  base rate  note which  represents the  additional cost                                                                    
for  extending foster  care to  these  elder youth.  Another                                                                    
fiscal note covers the foster  care special needs provisions                                                                    
for  extraordinary costs  that foster  care families  incur.                                                                    
The  third fiscal  note addresses  the changes  necessary to                                                                    
the case management system as a result of the legislation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara pointed  out that  he was  economically                                                                    
prudent  by  delaying  the effective  date  on  fiscal  note                                                                    
number  six  to  January  1st, which  was  the  time  period                                                                    
necessary for the department to implement the program.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Hawker  asked if the  maximum advantage  of federal                                                                    
funds available were utilized. Ms.  Elgee responded yes. She                                                                    
noted  the difficulty  in estimating  the amount  of federal                                                                    
reimbursement for foster children.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Hawker   asked  Representative  Gara   if  federal                                                                    
reimbursement was availed.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  answered  yes,   the  bill  is  called                                                                    
Fostering Connections  and was signed  in by George  Bush in                                                                    
2008.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Hawker MOVED  to report  HB 126  out of  Committee                                                                    
with individual recommendations  and the accompanying fiscal                                                                    
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CSHB  126(FIN) was  REPORTED  out of  Committee  with a  "do                                                                    
pass" recommendation and  with attached previously published                                                                    
fiscal notes: FN4 (DHS), FN5 (DHS), FN6 (DHS).                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:26:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 222(JUD)                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act   relating  to   the  crimes   of  harassment,                                                                    
     distribution  and  possession   of  child  pornography,                                                                    
     failure  to  register  as  a   sex  offender  or  child                                                                    
     kidnapper, and  distribution of indecent material  to a                                                                    
     minor;  relating to  suspending imposition  of sentence                                                                    
     and  conditions  of  probation   or  parole  for  human                                                                    
     trafficking or  for certain  sex offenses;  relating to                                                                    
     aggravating   factors   in  sentencing;   relating   to                                                                    
     reporting   of  crimes;   relating  to   administrative                                                                    
     subpoenas  for certain  records involving  exploitation                                                                    
     of  children;   amending  Rule  16,  Alaska   Rules  of                                                                    
     Criminal  Procedure;  and  providing for  an  effective                                                                    
     date."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was RECESSED at 10:07 PM.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
RECESSED                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
(Find continued minutes in HFIN 041310 0818 AM)                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HCS for CSSB 110(JUD) sectional.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HCS for SB110 Sponsor Statement.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HB 324 CSWORKDRAFT S VERSION.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
HB 324 CSWORKDRAFT S VERSION.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
AK S.B. 222 Letter to House Finance Committee.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
CSHB324(JUD)-DOA-PDA-04-12-10.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
SB 222 Gov. Letter & ACLU Letter.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
DOC001.PDF HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
10 CSHB 324 (JUD) FN NEW COURTS.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
10 CSHB 324 (JUD) FN.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
06 HB324 ACLU Position paper 2010 03 22[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
05 HB324 Court Records[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
03 HB324 Sectional v. A[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
HB 283 Amendment #1 Hawker.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 283
Final Ten-Year Plan to Combat Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence doc.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB283-DOA-DMV-02-05-10 (3).pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 283
SB 110 Amendment #1 Gara.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HB 126 Testimony.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 126
CSSB222(JUD)-DOA-PDA-04-12-10.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
HB 126 CS WORKDRAFT VERSION 26-LS0309 Q.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 126
AK S.B. 222 Letter to House Finance Committee.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM