Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519

05/04/2019 12:00 PM FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
12:00:02 PM Start
12:00:47 PM HB49
06:34:50 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Continued From 5/3/19 --
Heard & Held
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                        May 4, 2019                                                                                             
                        12:00 p.m.                                                                                              
[Note: meeting  continued from  May 3,  2019, 1:30  p.m. See                                                                    
separate minutes dated 5/3/19 1:30 p.m. for detail.]                                                                            
12:00:02 PM                                                                                                                   
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 12:00 p.m.                                                                                                          
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair                                                                                    
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Kelly Merrick                                                                                                    
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard                                                                                         
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
John  Skidmore, Director,  Criminal Division,  Department of                                                                    
Law;  Jen   Winkelman,  Director,  Probation,   Parole,  and                                                                    
Pretrial,  Department of  Corrections; Nancy  Meade, General                                                                    
Counsel,   Alaska   Court   System;  Kelly   Goode,   Deputy                                                                    
Commissioner,  Department   of  Corrections;   Sylvan  Robb,                                                                    
Administrative    Services     Director,    Department    of                                                                    
Corrections,    Office    of    Management    and    Budget;                                                                    
Representative   Ivy   Spohnholz;  Kelly   Howell,   Special                                                                    
Assistant    and    Legislative   Liaison,    Division    of                                                                    
Administrative  Services,   Department  of   Public  Safety;                                                                    
Representative Bryce Edgmon;  Representative Steve Thompson;                                                                    
Representative Louise Stutes;  Representative Grier Hopkins;                                                                    
Representative  Josh  Revak;   Representative  Matt  Claman;                                                                    
Representative   Sharon  Jackson;   Representative  Jonathan                                                                    
Kreiss-Tomkins;  Representative  Geran Tarr;  Senator  Peter                                                                    
Micciche; Senator Lora Reinbold; Representative Adam Wool.                                                                      
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Laura  Brooks, Deputy  Director,  Health and  Rehabilitation                                                                    
Services, Department  of Corrections; Steve  Williams, Chief                                                                    
Operating  Officer, Alaska  Mental  Health Trust  Authority;                                                                    
Jeff Edwards,  Executive Director, Parole  Board, Department                                                                    
of Corrections; Andrew  Greenstreet, Deputy Director, Alaska                                                                    
State  Troopers  Division,   Department  of  Public  Safety;                                                                    
Kathryn Monfreda,  Director, Statewide  Services, Department                                                                    
of Public Safety; James Stinson,  Director, Office of Public                                                                    
Advocacy,  Department  of  Administration;  Beth  Goldstein,                                                                    
Acting Public Defender, Department of Administration.                                                                           
HB 49     CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                             
          HB 49 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
Co-Chair   Wilson   reviewed   the   meeting   agenda.   She                                                                    
highlighted the  committee had previously heard  HB 145, the                                                                    
House  Judiciary  Committee  bill  on the  same  topic.  She                                                                    
reviewed other  crime bills sponsored  by the  governor that                                                                    
had been included  in a new committee substitute  (CS) of HB                                                                    
49 including  SB 32, SB 33,  SB 34, and SB  35. The concepts                                                                    
were not new and had been rolled into one document.                                                                             
HOUSE BILL NO. 49                                                                                                             
     "An  Act  relating  to   criminal  law  and  procedure;                                                                    
     relating   to   controlled  substances;   relating   to                                                                    
     probation; relating to  sentencing; relating to reports                                                                    
     of  involuntary  commitment;  amending Rule  6,  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure; and  providing  for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
12:00:47 PM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Johnston  MOVED   to  ADOPT  proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for  HB  49, Work  Draft  31-GH1029\E  (Radford,                                                                    
5/3/19). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  acknowledged Representatives  Bryce Edgmon,                                                                    
Chuck Kopp,  Steve Thompson, Grier Hopkins  in the audience.                                                                    
She reviewed the meeting agenda.                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Wilson  invited the  Department  of  Law (DOL)  to                                                                    
review the  changes to  the bill.  The committee  would also                                                                    
hear  from the  Alaska  Mental Health  Trust Authority,  the                                                                    
Public  Defender Agency,  Office of  Public Advocacy,  Court                                                                    
System, and  the Department of Corrections.  She intended to                                                                    
hear draft fiscal notes from each of the impacted agencies.                                                                     
12:03:06 PM                                                                                                                   
JOHN  SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR,  CRIMINAL DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
LAW,  reported that  the CS  was  a compilation  of what  he                                                                    
considered  to  be  the most  important  provisions  in  the                                                                    
governor's four  crime bills. He  highlighted there  were at                                                                    
least nine  areas where the  provisions were  different than                                                                    
what the  governor had  introduced. He noted  it was  not to                                                                    
say  that   the  governor  was  not   interested  in  seeing                                                                    
provisions in the  way he had introduced  them; however, the                                                                    
department  believed   it  could  work  with   the  proposed                                                                    
provisions.  He believed  the bill  would  be a  substantial                                                                    
step towards  "getting us  back in  the game  to be  able to                                                                    
help with some  of the really important  concepts." The bill                                                                    
would effectively  repeal and  replace the  negative aspects                                                                    
of SB 91 [omnibus crime  reform legislation passed in 2016].                                                                    
He  intended to  highlight the  nine major  differences from                                                                    
the governor's original legislation as he reviewed the CS.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Wilson acknowledged  Representative Louise  Stutes                                                                    
in  the audience.  She  noted the  committee  would have  an                                                                    
opportunity to ask questions at the end of each section.                                                                        
Representative Carpenter asked DOL  to communicate whether a                                                                    
section  maintained   or  repealed   provisions  of   SB  91                                                                    
throughout the meeting.                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson  recognized Representative Ivy  Spohnholz in                                                                    
the audience.                                                                                                                   
12:05:21 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore intended  to  discuss  the legislative  intent                                                                    
language originally found in the  bill. He would also review                                                                    
a document [titled  "Draft CS HB 49" from  the Department of                                                                    
Law (copy  on file)] that  laid out concepts covered  by the                                                                    
bill (he would not review the  bill by sections) in order to                                                                    
help  the  public  understand the  legislation.  The  intent                                                                    
language at  the beginning  of the bill  was designed  to do                                                                    
important  two  things. First,  the  bill  would overturn  a                                                                    
couple of  cases that had been  handed down by the  Court of                                                                    
Appeals. He  elaborated that the  intent language  was meant                                                                    
to explain  why and what  was going  on with the  cases. The                                                                    
cases were  Williams and  Doe -  the relevant  sections were                                                                    
listed in the intent language.  The department had worked on                                                                    
other intent language with the  Court System that encouraged                                                                    
the  increased  use  of video  teleconferencing.  Any  other                                                                    
intent language  had been  found in  some of  the provisions                                                                    
the Senate bills had attempted to work on.                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore  began  with the  bill's  elimination  of  the                                                                    
marriage  defense  for  sexual assault.  He  explained  that                                                                    
current statutes  included a provision where  marriage was a                                                                    
defense  against sexual  assault.  The provisions  addressed                                                                    
when  a person  was  mentally  incapable, incapacitated,  or                                                                    
unaware  that  sexual activity  was  occurring  to them.  He                                                                    
spoke to  the critical importance of  understanding what the                                                                    
terms  meant.  He  noted the  committee  had  some  previous                                                                    
discussions  about Alzheimer's  and  dementia.  He read  the                                                                    
definition of mentally incapable under AS 11.41.470(4):                                                                         
     "mentally  incapable"  means  suffering from  a  mental                                                                    
     disease or defect that renders  the person incapable of                                                                    
     understanding  the   nature  or  consequences   of  the                                                                    
     person's conduct,  including the potential for  harm to                                                                    
     that person                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  elaborated that Alzheimer's and  dementia were                                                                    
progressive diseases.  He stated  there were points  in time                                                                    
where  a person  could be  diagnosed with  the diseases  but                                                                    
still  understand   what  was  going  on   around  them.  He                                                                    
explained it  did not make  it illegal  for there to  be any                                                                    
sexual activity  between spouses if the  defense language in                                                                    
the CS was  adopted. The state would have to  prove beyond a                                                                    
reasonable doubt that  at the time the  conduct occurred the                                                                    
individual had been rendered  incapable of understanding. He                                                                    
elaborated that  if someone came  forward claiming  that the                                                                    
individual had understood, it would  be a defense. The state                                                                    
would  have to  show  they could  not  comprehend, that  the                                                                    
Alzheimer's or  dementia had progressed to  that point where                                                                    
they did not  understand at the time of  the activity. Under                                                                    
the bill,  when a  person had  Alzheimer's or  dementia that                                                                    
progressed  to the  point  where a  person  could no  longer                                                                    
speak, communicate  consent, or control their  movements, at                                                                    
that  point  marriage  would  not be  a  defense  to  sexual                                                                    
12:10:22 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore continued  that  the  elimination of  marriage                                                                    
defense had  not been  part of SB  91 and had  come up  as a                                                                    
separate issue that needed to be addressed.                                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson  acknowledged Senator Peter Micciche  in the                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore addressed sexual abuse  of a minor in the third                                                                    
degree. The crime occurred where a  victim was 13, 14, or 15                                                                    
years old and there was  sexual contact and the offender was                                                                    
at least four  years older. Despite the fact  that the crime                                                                    
of  sexual  abuse  of  a minor  included  the  term  "sexual                                                                    
abuse," the  crime was  not considered  a sex  offense under                                                                    
current law.  He elaborated that  the crime was  not subject                                                                    
to sex offender registration and  did not carry the enhanced                                                                    
penalties that sex offenses did.  The bill would establish a                                                                    
subset  of   sexual  abuse  of   a  minor  that   should  be                                                                    
categorized as a sex offense  for purposes of sentencing and                                                                    
registration. The bill increased  the age difference between                                                                    
victim and  offender from four  years to six years.  The age                                                                    
range for the  victim would remain 13 to 15.  When there was                                                                    
a six-year age difference the  crime would be subject to the                                                                    
enhanced  sentencing penalties  of  2 to  12  years and  the                                                                    
offender would be subject to sex offender registration.                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore  relayed that  sexual abuse of  a minor  in the                                                                    
third degree had not  been a part of SB 91,  but it had come                                                                    
up  in  the conversation  about  SB  91. He  explained  that                                                                    
presumptive sentencing  had been  adjusted for  all offenses                                                                    
except sex offenses  under SB 91. He  clarified that because                                                                    
sexual  abuse  of  a  minor  in the  third  degree  was  not                                                                    
classified  as  a  sex  offense,  the  sentencing  had  been                                                                    
adjusted under SB 91. The change  was in part, a response to                                                                    
what the state had learned during the SB 91 discussions.                                                                        
12:13:15 PM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson recognized Representative  Josh Revak in the                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  for  more  detail  about  the  age                                                                    
differential  [regarding the  offense of  sexual abuse  of a                                                                    
minor in the third degree].                                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  replied that it  would be  a crime, but  not a                                                                    
sex offense,  when a 17-year  old engaged in  sexual contact                                                                    
with a  13-year old (an  age difference of four  years). The                                                                    
crime became a sex offense  when there was an age difference                                                                    
of six years (e.g. a  19-year old engaging in sexual contact                                                                    
with  a 13-year  old). He  gave further  age range  examples                                                                    
with the six year age difference.  It would be illegal for a                                                                    
19-year old to engage in  sexual contact with a 15-year old,                                                                    
but it  would not  become a  sex offense  until there  was a                                                                    
six-year  age difference  (e.g.  a 21-year  old engaging  in                                                                    
sexual contact with a 15-year old).                                                                                             
Representative  Josephson   considered  the   difference  in                                                                    
treatment between  various ages.  He asked  for verification                                                                    
that if the  crime involved a 17-year old and  a 13-year old                                                                    
it would  not be  waivable to adult  court; however,  if the                                                                    
offender was 18-years  old and the victim  was 14-years old,                                                                    
the crime would be a felony for the 18-year old.                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  affirmed. He explained that  the two scenarios                                                                    
were both crimes, but there was  a difference in the way the                                                                    
justice  system managed  juveniles  and adults.  Individuals                                                                    
under the age of 18 would  be handled in juvenile court; the                                                                    
offense was not automatically waivable to adult court.                                                                          
12:15:32 PM                                                                                                                   
Representative Knopp  asked how  the crime would  be defined                                                                    
if  the offender  was 18-years  old and  the victim  was 14-                                                                    
years old.                                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that the  scenario  would be  sexual                                                                    
abuse of  a minor  in the third  degree, but  under statute,                                                                    
the crime  was not  treated as  a sex offense  - it  was not                                                                    
subject to a greater penalty or sex offender registration.                                                                      
Representative  Josephson   surmised  that   an  18-year-old                                                                    
should not fall  in love with a 14-year-old  because even if                                                                    
they entered into a consensual  relationship it could become                                                                    
felonious quickly.                                                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore  answered there was nothing  wrong with falling                                                                    
in love, but  the individuals would have to  wait until they                                                                    
were  older to  engage  in sexual  activity.  He provided  a                                                                    
personal example  about the age  difference between  him and                                                                    
his wife.                                                                                                                       
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked about the differences  in sentencing                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore replied that a  Class C felony for sexual abuse                                                                    
of a minor  in the third degree that was  not a sex offense,                                                                    
had a  presumptive sentencing range  of 0  to 2 years  for a                                                                    
first  time   offense.  When  there   was  a   six-year  age                                                                    
difference,  sexual abuse  of a  minor in  the third  degree                                                                    
became a  sexual crime and carried  a presumptive sentencing                                                                    
range of 2 to 12 years  for a first time offense (there were                                                                    
additional sentencing ranges for repeat offenses).                                                                              
12:17:55 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore discussed  the crime of online  enticement of a                                                                    
minor. Currently, the crime pertained  to an adult trying to                                                                    
entice a minor  to engage in sexual activity via  the use of                                                                    
a  computer.  He  explained  that  currently,  if  the  same                                                                    
individuals were  to communicate  face-to-face it  would not                                                                    
be a  crime. The  provision removed  the term  "online" from                                                                    
the  title and  from  the elements  of  the offense,  making                                                                    
enticement also illegal face-to-face.                                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to the  next provision  related to  the                                                                    
crime of  indecent viewing. He  noted the complexity  of the                                                                    
statute that  had confused practitioners  for some  time. He                                                                    
noted  that  some  of  the  penalties  associated  with  the                                                                    
particular  concept  should   potentially  be  adjusted.  He                                                                    
explained that the  crime could sound sexual  in nature, but                                                                    
it  was  not   considered  a  sex  crime   for  purposes  of                                                                    
sentencing  or   [sex  offender]  registration.   The  crime                                                                    
involved  two types  of conduct  pertaining to  children and                                                                    
adults. The  first was the  viewing of the  private exposure                                                                    
(defined  in  law)  of  genitals,  anus,  or  female  breast                                                                    
without  consent.  The  offense   could  happen  by  looking                                                                    
through  a  window or  peephole  or  via hidden  camera.  He                                                                    
referenced a  recent problem where  some Airbnbs  in Ireland                                                                    
and other  places had  hidden cameras  in homes  people were                                                                    
renting for vacation purposes.                                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore shared  that he had prosecuted a  case 15 years                                                                    
earlier where a lifeguard had  installed a camera in a smoke                                                                    
detector in  the women's  locker room  to view  children and                                                                    
adults changing  clothes. The individual had  been convicted                                                                    
and the crime  had not been considered a sex  offense at the                                                                    
time. He relayed that changes  in sex offense laws had taken                                                                    
place much after that case.  Once the changes had been made,                                                                    
he had  been amazed to  discover that type of  conduct would                                                                    
still  not  be  considered   a  sex  offense.  Other  recent                                                                    
examples included  individuals installing a spy  camera in a                                                                    
significant  other's bathroom  that captured  images of  the                                                                    
significant other  and their children. The  bill would clean                                                                    
up   the  statutory   language   to  make   it  easier   for                                                                    
practitioners to  follow. Additionally, the bill  would help                                                                    
explain the sentencing. He detailed  there had always been a                                                                    
different  sentence  between an  adult  victim  and a  child                                                                    
12:21:44 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore   continued  to  review  the   sentencing  for                                                                    
indecent viewing. He explained that  the crime was a Class A                                                                    
misdemeanor for an  adult victim and a Class C  felony for a                                                                    
child victim. The Class C  felony carried a sentencing range                                                                    
of 0 to 2 years,  did not require sex offender registration,                                                                    
and  did not  have higher  penalties. He  detailed that  the                                                                    
bill  aimed  to take  a  tiered  approach. The  crime  would                                                                    
remain a  Class A  misdemeanor when  it involved  viewing an                                                                    
adult  directly, but  no photo  was taken.  The crime  would                                                                    
become a  Class C felony  in cases  where a photo  was taken                                                                    
and would be subject  to a sentence of 0 to  2 years, but it                                                                    
would not  be classified as  a sex offense. The  sex offense                                                                    
designation  was   reserved  for   when  the   victims  were                                                                    
children. The  crime would  be a Class  C felony  for direct                                                                    
viewing  and a  Class B  felony for  taking a  photo -  both                                                                    
offenses  would  be  deemed registerable  sex  offenses  and                                                                    
carry higher sentencing ranges.                                                                                                 
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard   asked  Mr.   Skidmore  to                                                                    
provide the bill  sections for reference as  he reviewed the                                                                    
changes in the CS.                                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore agreed.  He cautioned  that the  order of  the                                                                    
outline did  not follow the  order of the bill  sections. He                                                                    
highlighted that  provisions pertaining to  indecent viewing                                                                    
were included in Sections 35 and 39 of the legislation.                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson  acknowledged Senator  Lora Reinbold  in the                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore moved  on to discuss theft  crimes. He informed                                                                    
the  committee that  all of  the provisions  had been  taken                                                                    
directly  from  HB  49  referred   by  the  House  Judiciary                                                                    
Committee. He noted that the  online enticement and indecent                                                                    
viewing had  nothing to  do with SB  91, whereas,  theft was                                                                    
one of the issues that occurred  in SB 91. He explained that                                                                    
in  SB  91,  the  state  had  changed  the  value  threshold                                                                    
impacting whether the  crime was a misdemeanor  or a felony;                                                                    
the value  was currently $750  and every five years  part of                                                                    
the judicial branch was instructed  to adjust the figure for                                                                    
inflation.  He  shared  that the  current  law  created  two                                                                    
problems. First, it prevented  the legislature from engaging                                                                    
in the  public debate  about the  appropriate level  for the                                                                    
dollar figure to be set at.  He noted that the dollar figure                                                                    
had been changed after significant  legislative debate in SB                                                                    
64 in 2015, SB  91 in 2016, and SB 54  in 2017. He explained                                                                    
it  was a  policy call  for  the legislature,  but it  would                                                                    
eliminate the  policy debate in the  legislature that seemed                                                                    
to be significant to the public.                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore  reviewed the second  problem with  the current                                                                    
theft provision. The theft dollar  figure threshold had been                                                                    
given to the  judicial branch to notice everyone  else - how                                                                    
everyone  in the  public was  to  learn of  the changes  and                                                                    
other things were issues the  state had not yet encountered.                                                                    
The item  was the  last piece  of SB 91  that would  go into                                                                    
effect  in 2020.  The bill  would remove  that provision  to                                                                    
eliminate the  problem. The relevant  bill sections  were 11                                                                    
through 27. Additionally, there  were several other sections                                                                    
related  to  theft  crimes,  including   the  new  crime  of                                                                    
possession  of  vehicle theft.  The  bill  also included  an                                                                    
identification document, which was  a good concept that came                                                                    
from the House Judiciary Committee.                                                                                             
12:27:21 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore shared that the  third concept included was the                                                                    
aggregated value for theft (in  Section 28) when it was over                                                                    
a  six  month  period   for  commercial  establishments.  He                                                                    
explained it  was a  good concept  from HB  49 by  the House                                                                    
Judiciary Committee.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair  Wilson   clarified  that   there  were   no  lower                                                                    
committees, only prior committees.                                                                                              
Representative Knopp  asked for detail on  the vehicle theft                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  answered that the  provision on  vehicle theft                                                                    
tools was  included in  Section 21 on  page 11.  The section                                                                    
discussed a  motor vehicle theft  tool that could  include a                                                                    
Slim Jim,  a master key, an  altered or shaved key,  a trial                                                                    
or  jiggler  key, a  lock  puller,  an electronic  unlocking                                                                    
device or similar device adapted  or designed for the use in                                                                    
committing vehicle  thefts. The  section defined a  trial or                                                                    
jiggler key  as a  key designed or  altered to  manipulate a                                                                    
vehicle locking mechanism other than  the lock for which the                                                                    
key was originally manufactured.  He noted that because cars                                                                    
were changing  and evolving there were  different mechanisms                                                                    
to try to steal vehicles. The  bill aimed at keeping up with                                                                    
the new mechanisms by including an updated list.                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson did not want to give anyone any ideas.                                                                          
Vice-Chair Ortiz  surmised that the change  reverted back to                                                                    
the law pre-SB 91.                                                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore agreed. The change  would revert back to pre-SB                                                                    
91 in terms of the method  used for adjusting the value of a                                                                    
property  offense between  a misdemeanor  and  a felony.  He                                                                    
detailed that the legislature could  adjust the value in the                                                                    
future via legislation.                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Ortiz  thought Mr. Skidmore mentioned  the intent                                                                    
for a  partial rollback in  SB 54 [crime  reform legislation                                                                    
passed in 2017].                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  replied that  SB  54  had originally  removed                                                                    
inflation adjustment,  but the  provision had  been deleted.                                                                    
Instead, people had elected to  talk about the dollar figure                                                                    
that  was  the  difference between  misdemeanor  and  felony                                                                    
12:30:49 PM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Josephson  spoke  to  the  reinstatement  of                                                                    
potential  jail penalties  even  for petty  theft. He  noted                                                                    
that those penalties were removed in  the CS and a new Class                                                                    
B misdemeanor was created.                                                                                                      
Mr.  Skidmore  affirmed.  He  noted  that  it  pertained  to                                                                    
sentencing provisions,  which he would address  later in the                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  addressed  the  concept  of  the  failure  to                                                                    
appear. The committee had previously  talked about the issue                                                                    
in  a meeting  on HB  49. The  concept had  been the  30-day                                                                    
grace period, which had created  issues. The CS would remove                                                                    
the  30-day grace  period and  return the  law to  its state                                                                    
prior to the passage of SB 91.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the section numbers.                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore replied Section 31 and 32.                                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  had  heard  about  the  reasons  why  the                                                                    
current  30-day  grace  period created  problems  because  a                                                                    
defendant  could fail  to  appear. He  asked  why the  grace                                                                    
period had been implemented.                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore recalled  that prior to SB 91 there  had been a                                                                    
practice  within the  Court System  (that he  believed still                                                                    
existed)  where  an  individual   failed  to  appear  for  a                                                                    
particular  hearing and  courts  would issue  a warrant  but                                                                    
would  hold  it  in  abeyance.   The  court  would  grant  a                                                                    
designated  timeframe (e.g.  24 hours,  48 hours,  or other)                                                                    
before putting  the warrant into  the system. He  noted that                                                                    
sometimes  the  court  would schedule  another  hearing  and                                                                    
would not issue  a warrant. The goal with  the provision had                                                                    
been to take the concept and put it into law.                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore  stated that  the practice  or concept  was not                                                                    
offensive;  it was  well within  a judge's  purview and  was                                                                    
appropriate.  However,  the  creation of  the  30-day  grace                                                                    
period swept other  hearings or cases into  the concept that                                                                    
the judge would not have chosen  to do. For example, a judge                                                                    
may have said a particular  individual had already failed to                                                                    
appear two  times previously and  they were issuing  a bench                                                                    
warrant. He elaborated that the  defendant could have failed                                                                    
to appear  (without consequence) for a  trial or evidentiary                                                                    
hearing that  meant witnesses, victims, and  others had been                                                                    
called in  to appear  in court.  The provision  had required                                                                    
the individual to  report to the court within 30  days and a                                                                    
hearing would  be rescheduled. The  process had  been deemed                                                                    
not to work  well. He reported there  had been approximately                                                                    
137 prosecutions for  failure to appear prior to  SB 91; the                                                                    
number had dropped to around 30  after the passage of SB 91.                                                                    
He noted the change was significant.                                                                                            
12:34:48 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore  moved  to  the  violation  of  conditions  of                                                                    
release (Section  33). He detailed  that prior to SB  91, it                                                                    
been  a   Class  A  misdemeanor   if  the   person  violated                                                                    
conditions set  on a  felony case. He  elaborated that  if a                                                                    
person violated conditions of release  on a misdemeanor, the                                                                    
crime was a  Class B misdemeanor. He detailed  that under SB                                                                    
91, violation  of conditions of release  had been eliminated                                                                    
as a  crime and was  returned to a violation.  He elaborated                                                                    
that it  had been reestablished  as a  crime under SB  54 in                                                                    
2017. The change back to a  crime had limited the penalty to                                                                    
five days.  Under the CS, returning  the crime to a  Class A                                                                    
and  B  misdemeanor,  would mean  penalty  ranges  could  be                                                                    
applied to the offense. He  mentioned the concepts where the                                                                    
issue   had  been   problematic.  There   were  cases   were                                                                    
individuals  had violated  conditions  and the  only way  to                                                                    
keep them  in jail  up to  a trial was  to convict  them and                                                                    
have them serve the sentence of the particular crime.                                                                           
12:36:33 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore addressed the concept  of escape, which had not                                                                    
been dealt with  in SB 91. The crime  related to individuals                                                                    
on  ankle  monitors.  He explained  that  individuals  could                                                                    
receive  an ankle  monitor pretrial  or  as a  way to  serve                                                                    
their sentence  post-conviction. The removal of  the monitor                                                                    
could be dealt  with in a couple of ways.  Pretrial, all the                                                                    
court could do was charge a  person with a 5-day penalty for                                                                    
a violation  of conditions of  release. The bill  would make                                                                    
the cutting  of an  ankle bracelet  a Class  C felony  for a                                                                    
person wearing  the monitor pretrial.  Second, the  CS would                                                                    
elevate the conduct from a Class  A misdemeanor to a Class C                                                                    
felony  if  the  person  removed  the  ankle  bracelet  when                                                                    
sentenced and  under detention for  a misdemeanor.  The goal                                                                    
of  elevating the  crimes and  showing  consequences was  to                                                                    
increase  use and  encourage more  use of  ankle monitoring.                                                                    
The  provisions  were  included   in  Sections  29  and  30.                                                                    
Additionally, the bill contained  repeal language in Section                                                                    
96, which would increase the crime to the felony level.                                                                         
12:38:56 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.   Skidmore   addressed    the   crime   of   terroristic                                                                    
threatening. He  explained that the  crime occurred  when an                                                                    
individual  made a  false threat  that caused  a substantial                                                                    
reaction  from authorities.  The  concept  was currently  in                                                                    
statute, but it did not  address the threat that someone may                                                                    
have  intended to  carry  out a  threat.  He explained  that                                                                    
there  was a  crime of  attempt, but  it was  not applicable                                                                    
until a  person had  taken a  substantial step.  He detailed                                                                    
that "substantial step"  was a term of art found  in the law                                                                    
for the crime of attempt; it  required a person to take real                                                                    
concrete  steps  towards  committing  a  crime.  Adding  the                                                                    
concept of  a real threat  that had  not yet been  acted on,                                                                    
allowed law enforcement to respond.                                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore elucidated that the  concept had been generated                                                                    
from  the concepts  seen in  Ketchikan  and Anchorage  where                                                                    
kids had  made threats  about something  that may  happen at                                                                    
school, which required a  significant response from schools.                                                                    
Law enforcement could  only be involved to  a certain extent                                                                    
if there was  not some sort of crime  associated. The change                                                                    
allowed  law   enforcement  to   take  the   additional  and                                                                    
appropriate steps  when there  was a  threat resulting  in a                                                                    
substantial response  from law enforcement and  the impacted                                                                    
entity (e.g. the evacuation of theater or school).                                                                              
12:40:57 PM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson noted the provision was in Section 34.                                                                          
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard asked  about the  different                                                                    
penalties  for  juveniles  and  adults  for  the  crime  [of                                                                    
terroristic threatening].                                                                                                       
Mr.    Skidmore    rephrased    his    understanding    that                                                                    
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard was  asking  how the  legal                                                                    
system  dealt  differently  with  children  and  adults.  He                                                                    
detailed  that an  adult  would be  prosecuted  in an  adult                                                                    
court, whereas a juvenile would  be prosecuted in a juvenile                                                                    
court and  their name would  be kept private. He  added that                                                                    
the  state's  juvenile  courts   protected  the  privacy  of                                                                    
juveniles  and  did  not  share the  vast  majority  of  the                                                                    
information.  He noted  there were  a couple  of exceptions,                                                                    
but  terroristic threatening  did  not  qualify. The  second                                                                    
difference  dealt with  the way  sanctions were  imposed. He                                                                    
elaborated that  when sanctions were  imposed on  adults the                                                                    
system looked at five factors  called the chain of criteria.                                                                    
When the  crime involved  a juvenile, the  system considered                                                                    
the best interest of the  child. He expounded that sometimes                                                                    
a juvenile  had to go  to a  detention facility, but  it was                                                                    
not always the  case. He detailed that more  often than not,                                                                    
things  were resolved  through  probation, discussions  with                                                                    
parents, and  other. He explained  there was a host  of ways                                                                    
the  system dealt  with those  things  related to  juveniles                                                                    
that looked  very different from  the adult world.  He noted                                                                    
it was  the reason it  was very significant when  a juvenile                                                                    
was waived into an adult court.                                                                                                 
Vice-Chair  Ortiz requested  to  hear which  section of  the                                                                    
bill was being discussed prior to Mr. Skidmore's review.                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore agreed.                                                                                                            
Representative  Knopp  returned  to   the  crime  of  escape                                                                    
related to  electronic ankle  monitoring. He  referenced Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore's  discussion that  the  Department of  Corrections                                                                    
(DOC) would  decide post-conviction [about  incarceration or                                                                    
electronic   monitoring].   He   thought   the   judge   was                                                                    
responsible for making the decision.                                                                                            
12:43:50 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore  confirmed that he  had said DOC.  He explained                                                                    
that  once a  judge issued  a  sentence or  a judgement,  it                                                                    
would be  up to  DOC to determine  what risk  the individual                                                                    
posed;  DOC would  determine whether  the individual  should                                                                    
serve their sentence  in a low, medium,  or maximum security                                                                    
facility, whether or not they  could be on ankle monitoring,                                                                    
and  whether  they could  be  in  a halfway  house/community                                                                    
residential  center  (CRC). He  noted  DOC  had policies  in                                                                    
place  (he  was  uncertain  whether  policies  were  set  in                                                                    
regulation)  and  discretion  to determine  the  appropriate                                                                    
place for a person to serve their sentence.                                                                                     
Representative Knopp stated he  was beginning to wonder what                                                                    
judges  were  doing.  He  elaborated  that  prosecutors  and                                                                    
defense  attorneys entered  an  agreement for  the judge  to                                                                    
approve and  then DOC  decided how  and where  an individual                                                                    
would serve  their sentence. He  wondered if the  system had                                                                    
stripped all  authority away from the  judges. He referenced                                                                    
Mr.   Skidmore's  mention   that   escape  from   electronic                                                                    
monitoring was a  Class C felony. He  asked for verification                                                                    
the sentencing range for the crime was 0 to 2 years.                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore responded affirmatively.                                                                                           
Representative Knopp provided a  scenario where a person cut                                                                    
off  their  ankle  monitor after  being  sentenced  and  was                                                                    
retried  and found  guilty on  a Class  C felony  charge. He                                                                    
asked  if the  individual would  be put  back on  electronic                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  replied that he did  not work for DOC,  but he                                                                    
found  it  highly unlikely  the  scenario  would occur.  His                                                                    
impression based on how the  policies had been executed over                                                                    
the years was that once  someone had committed the violation                                                                    
of removing an ankle bracelet,  it meant they were no longer                                                                    
a good candidate for electronic monitoring.                                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson requested to hear  from DOC. She believed it                                                                    
was important to understand the  likelihood of someone being                                                                    
released  on   electronic  monitoring  after   convicted  of                                                                    
removing the device previously.                                                                                                 
Representative  Knopp  thought  it  was  important  to  know                                                                    
whether  a   person  would  be  ineligible   for  electronic                                                                    
monitoring under the scenario.                                                                                                  
JEN  WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR,  PROBATION, PAROLE,  AND PRETRIAL,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF  CORRECTIONS, answered that a  risk matrix was                                                                    
completed for anyone who  applied for electronic monitoring.                                                                    
If the  person had  been charged with  a prior  escape, they                                                                    
were given  a certain number  of points that  precluded them                                                                    
from  being  a  candidate  for  electronic  monitoring.  The                                                                    
individual   could   appeal   the   decision   through   the                                                                    
commissioner's office,  but she  had not seen  an individual                                                                    
win an appeal under the scenario provided.                                                                                      
Representative  Knopp   asked  for  verification   that  the                                                                    
opportunity was still available for  a person to be eligible                                                                    
for electronic monitoring under the scenario he provided.                                                                       
Ms.   Winkelman   replied   that   individuals   turned   in                                                                    
applications all of the time;  however, once the scoring was                                                                    
completed  individuals  could  be denied.  For  example,  by                                                                    
statute a person in on  a domestic violence charge could not                                                                    
be  placed on  electronic monitoring,  but they  could still                                                                    
turn  in an  application  even though  the department  would                                                                    
deny the request.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair  Wilson surmised  individuals  were  all given  the                                                                    
same opportunity to the process.                                                                                                
Ms. Winkelman replied affirmatively.                                                                                            
Co-Chair   Wilson   requested    to   hear   about   judges'                                                                    
responsibilities  from the  Court  System.  She pointed  out                                                                    
that two  parties could make a  deal, but that did  not mean                                                                    
the judge had to agree to  it. She continued that at the end                                                                    
of the day  the judge considered all evidence  and there was                                                                    
no circumventing  the judge's authority through  any kind of                                                                    
plea  deal. She  did not  want there  to be  a misconception                                                                    
that  judges  did  not  make a  determination;  they  had  a                                                                    
process they were required to go through.                                                                                       
12:48:15 PM                                                                                                                   
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, replied                                                                    
that the  judges were very  busy. She believed  the question                                                                    
pertained  to the  authority the  court had  in relation  to                                                                    
plea bargains. She  detailed that a judge may  reject a plea                                                                    
bargain. Generally,  the courts ensure that  defense counsel                                                                    
and  prosecutor   had  presented  a  legal   agreement  that                                                                    
sentenced the person within the  appropriate ranges and that                                                                    
it  was not  something  patently  unreasonable. In  general,                                                                    
plea  bargains were  approved by  judges  because judges  at                                                                    
that point in  the case had much less  information about the                                                                    
circumstances   of  the   case  than   the  attorneys.   She                                                                    
clarified,  that did  not mean  the judge  did nothing;  the                                                                    
judge  reviewed  plea  bargains   to  ensure  attorneys  had                                                                    
entered a legal and appropriate appeal.                                                                                         
Representative  Knopp clarified  he  did not  mean to  imply                                                                    
judges  were not  doing anything.  In earlier  testimony the                                                                    
committee  had  heard  that judges  seldomly  rejected  plea                                                                    
agreements   and  did   not  have   the  option   to  change                                                                    
Ms. Mead  agreed that judges  could accept or reject  a plea                                                                    
agreement.  She elaborated  that a  judge did  not have  the                                                                    
authority  to tell  a prosecutor  they  should have  pursued                                                                    
charges  that  the prosecutor  had  determined  ought to  be                                                                    
dismissed. She  added that  at that point  in the  case when                                                                    
plea bargains  were entered there  had not yet been  a trial                                                                    
and the attorneys had much  better facts about the case than                                                                    
the  judge;  therefore, there  was  a  supposition that  the                                                                    
attorneys knew  a bit better  about what  was going on  in a                                                                    
Representative Josephson  noted that  the judge also  had to                                                                    
make a probable cause finding. He  asked if the judge had to                                                                    
hear  basic facts  of the  allegation and  make a  pro forma                                                                    
finding that the allegation seemed to fit the charge.                                                                           
Ms. Mead answered that she  was not terribly familiar with a                                                                    
probable  cause finding  happening during  a change  of plea                                                                    
hearing (the  hearing to accept  or reject a  plea bargain),                                                                    
but the  court typically  heard a  brief explanation  of the                                                                    
case  to  get a  sense  of  what  was  going on.  The  court                                                                    
typically had something in the  file, even if it was limited                                                                    
to  a   half  page  police   report.  She  noted   that  the                                                                    
information the  court had  about a case  at that  point was                                                                    
not in depth.                                                                                                                   
12:51:50 PM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Merrick  asked   what  percentage  of  cases                                                                    
resulted in a  plea deal and how the parties  decided a case                                                                    
would be pled or tried.                                                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore  answered  that approximately  95  percent  of                                                                    
cases  were resolved  through  plea  negotiations. When  the                                                                    
prosecution  entered   into  a   change  of  plea   or  plea                                                                    
negotiations,  it considered  the strength  of the  case and                                                                    
the likely  outcome if  a person  was convicted  as charged.                                                                    
Additionally,  the prosecution  consulted  with victims  and                                                                    
law  enforcement. All  of the  items  went into  determining                                                                    
what the  prosecution believed to  be a  reasonable outcome.                                                                    
Plea  negotiations  always  required some  incentive  for  a                                                                    
person  to agree  to giving  up rights  to go  to trial  and                                                                    
having witnesses brought in front of the court.                                                                                 
Ms. Mead agreed. She had  recently looked at the information                                                                    
about how cases were resolved  (referred to by the courts as                                                                    
dispositions).  She  shared that  fewer  than  5 percent  of                                                                    
cases went  to trial; the  number had been around  3 percent                                                                    
in  the   last  several   years.  The  dismissal   rate  for                                                                    
misdemeanors was  about 42 percent  in the past  year, which                                                                    
left less than 60 percent to  be resolved in plea deals. The                                                                    
felony  dismissal rate  had been  around 30  percent in  the                                                                    
past year,  with a  couple percent going  to trial,  it left                                                                    
the percentage of cases resulting  in plea deals in the high                                                                    
60 percent range.                                                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore  clarified why  he had  identified the  rate of                                                                    
cases  resulting in  a plea  negotiation as  95 percent.  He                                                                    
explained that  many of  the dismissals  were the  result of                                                                    
plea  deals. He  noted that  was not  the situation  for all                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  recognized Representatives Matt  Claman and                                                                    
Sharon  Jackson  in  the  audience.  She  asked  a  question                                                                    
related   to  the   crime  of   threats.   She  provided   a                                                                    
hypothetical scenario  where a middle school  student posted                                                                    
on Facebook  that they  planned to  shoot certain  people at                                                                    
school.  She  elaborated that  the  post  was shown  to  the                                                                    
principal and law  enforcement was called. She  asked if the                                                                    
scenario  was a  crime currently;  if not,  she asked  if it                                                                    
would become a crime under the CS.                                                                                              
12:55:23 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore answered that he  was cautious about responding                                                                    
to  hypothetical  scenarios.   He  considered  the  scenario                                                                    
presented by Co-Chair Wilson.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson  clarified that in the  scenario, the police                                                                    
had  been called  to  the  school, but  the  school was  not                                                                    
evacuated,  and no  further  action had  been  taken by  the                                                                    
student making the  threat or by the school.  She was trying                                                                    
to determine  whether the situation  was considered  a crime                                                                    
under current law and the CS.                                                                                                   
Mr.   Skidmore  answered   that  under   current  law,   law                                                                    
enforcement  could respond  to try  to determine  whether it                                                                    
was a real  threat; if they believed the threat  to be real,                                                                    
they would  take steps to  try to intervene.  The difficulty                                                                    
was that law  enforcement was limited in the  steps it could                                                                    
take if  the treat was  real. He  referred to Section  34 on                                                                    
page 17 of the CS and  reported that the CS would enable law                                                                    
enforcement  to take  additional  action. He  read from  the                                                                    
     (a) A person commits the crime of terroristic                                                                              
     threatening in the second degree if the person makes a                                                                     
     threat that                                                                                                                
          (1) places...a person...in reasonable fear of                                                                         
          serious physical injury to any person with                                                                            
          reckless disregard that the threat may cause...                                                                       
Mr.   Skidmore  explained   that  in   the  situation,   law                                                                    
enforcement would  have to evaluate  whether the  person who                                                                    
had made the Facebook post had  done so and that it resulted                                                                    
in placing  someone in fear  of serious physical  injury (he                                                                    
assumed that  was the case  in Co-Chair  Wilson's scenario).                                                                    
He  referenced  the  bill's  language  "disregard  that  the                                                                    
threat  may  cause,"  and explained  that  even  though  the                                                                    
school was not evacuated,  the prosecutor would be obligated                                                                    
to  show that  the person  who  made the  Facebook post  was                                                                    
reckless  in disregarding  the fact  that  there could  have                                                                    
been  a more  significant emergency  response that  includes                                                                    
the initiation of emergency protocol  for a building, public                                                                    
place or  area, or business  premises that causes  a serious                                                                    
public inconvenience  or the public or  substantial group of                                                                    
the public  to be  in fear of  serious physical  injury. The                                                                    
fact  that the  threat may  result  in one  of those  things                                                                    
would be a  crime and would allow police  to take additional                                                                    
steps that they could not currently take.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson  commented  that unfortunately  the  issues                                                                    
were actually happening in schools.                                                                                             
12:58:22 PM                                                                                                                   
Representative   Carpenter   asked  for   verification   the                                                                    
consequences  would be  different  for a  threat  made by  a                                                                    
child versus  a threat  made by  an adult  as they  would be                                                                    
heard in different court systems.                                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore responded affirmatively.                                                                                           
12:58:37 PM                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore moved  on to  discuss  provision dealing  with                                                                    
drugs  under  Sections 41  through  48  of the  legislation.                                                                    
There were a  couple major compromises found in  the CS that                                                                    
were still very important aspects.  He noted that Sections 2                                                                    
and 3  included some  conforming language given  the changes                                                                    
in  statutes  for  drug offenses.  He  cautioned  that  when                                                                    
reading  the  bill,  it may  appear  certain  sections  were                                                                    
repeated,  but it  was  necessary to  read  the sections  in                                                                    
conjunction with  the repealers in Section  96. He explained                                                                    
that  SB 91  had reduced  drug offenses  from a  Class A  or                                                                    
Class B  felony to  a Class  B or Class  C felony.  The bill                                                                    
would increase  drug offenses back to  a Class A or  Class B                                                                    
felony.  He  advised that  the  language  was not  shown  as                                                                    
deleted in Sections 41 through  48; it was necessary to read                                                                    
the sections in conjunction  with the repealer to understand                                                                    
when a section was deleted.                                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  addressed drug  possession. He  explained that                                                                    
the   governor's   legislation   proposed  to   return   all                                                                    
possession to  a Class C  felony. Whereas, the  CS specified                                                                    
that the first  two offenses would remain  a misdemeanor. He                                                                    
explained that the provision qualified  as a "must have" and                                                                    
a  substantial step  in the  right  direction because  under                                                                    
current  law,  the first  two  possession  charges had  zero                                                                    
active  jail  time.  The  CS   would  allow  the  first  two                                                                    
possessions to  result in a  Class A misdemeanor that  had a                                                                    
sentencing range of 0 to 1 year.                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore explained  that the  change in  sentencing was                                                                    
significant  for two  reasons. First,  when law  enforcement                                                                    
responded to a  drug call, they would likely  take the drugs                                                                    
and  paraphernalia  and destroy  them,  but  not arrest  the                                                                    
individual. Law enforcement had  the authority to arrest the                                                                    
individual, but  it was essentially meaningless  because the                                                                    
sentencing  provision  carried  zero active  jail  time.  He                                                                    
explained it was the same  concept that had been encountered                                                                    
for Class  C felonies when it  had been adjusted in  SB 54 -                                                                    
people  had not  been arrested  for the  crimes because  the                                                                    
jail  potential   had  been  zero;  the   penalty  had  been                                                                    
probation  only. Consequently,  the judge  would immediately                                                                    
release  a  person  if  the   jail  sentence  was  zero.  He                                                                    
explained that  under the scenario, the  penalty was greater                                                                    
for holding a  person than the potential  consequence at the                                                                    
end of  the trial. Adjusting the  sentencing to 0 to  1 year                                                                    
would  allow officers  to make  an arrest;  the judge  would                                                                    
still  have the  discretion  to determine  whether a  person                                                                    
should be held.                                                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore  highlighted the second  significant difference                                                                    
related to  possession charges.  He referenced  testimony he                                                                    
had  given  in  a  prior  meeting related  to  the  need  to                                                                    
incentivize people  to get treatment.  The CS  would provide                                                                    
incentive that was dramatically  different from current law.                                                                    
He  noted that  the change  did not  go as  far as  what the                                                                    
governor had asked  for. He underscored that  the change was                                                                    
a critical step in the right direction.                                                                                         
1:03:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked if the adjustment  would revert back                                                                    
to the law pre-SB 91.                                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore  responded in the  negative. He  explained that                                                                    
prior  to SB  91 any  possession  of a  drug was  a Class  C                                                                    
felony. He noted  that under the CS, the  first two offenses                                                                    
were  misdemeanors  and the  third  offense  was a  Class  C                                                                    
felony. He added  that a suspended entry  of judgement (SEJ)                                                                    
could be used  as well. Under the CS,  for those individuals                                                                    
who were  addicted, there would  be more tools  available to                                                                    
law  enforcement and  prosecutors to  try to  incentivize an                                                                    
offender to get clean. He  understood that getting clean may                                                                    
not  happen  immediately.  The  individual  would  have  two                                                                    
chances (potentially  more changes  when factoring  in SEJs)                                                                    
to try  to get  clean. A  third offense would  be a  Class C                                                                    
felony, which was a change  from current law where the crime                                                                    
always  remained  a  misdemeanor.  He  reiterated  that  the                                                                    
compromise was a substantial step in the right direction.                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore referenced a study  given to the committee at a                                                                    
recent  meeting  reporting that  77  percent  of the  people                                                                    
released  from a  drug crime  committed  a non-drug  related                                                                    
crime in  the next  nine years.  He stated  that individuals                                                                    
struggling with  addiction needed  help and  recognized that                                                                    
they  could substantially  impact communities  by committing                                                                    
crimes that included theft,  assault, criminal mischief, and                                                                    
other. He  restated that the  change was a  substantial step                                                                    
in the right direction.                                                                                                         
Vice-Chair  Ortiz recalled  that  when  the legislature  had                                                                    
debated  SB 91  there  had been  consensus  that locking  up                                                                    
individuals who  use drugs was  not working. He  shared that                                                                    
it  had  been  one  of  the  motivators  for  looking  at  a                                                                    
different approach. One  of the other factors  had been that                                                                    
the  state was  incarcerating people  at a  rate that  would                                                                    
require another prison. He asked  whether the incentives for                                                                    
treatment and  other things be maintained  if the sentencing                                                                    
range was 0 to  180 days instead of 0 to  1 year as proposed                                                                    
in the CS.                                                                                                                      
1:07:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore answered  that 180 days would be  180 days more                                                                    
than what was offered under  law currently. He could not say                                                                    
it was not also a step  in the [right] direction. He did not                                                                    
believe the increase  to 6 months jail  time was significant                                                                    
enough. Going up  to one year was substantial  and he stated                                                                    
it  was   a  significant  step  that   prosecutors  and  law                                                                    
enforcement would  like to see.  He did not know  how others                                                                    
would view the idea of a 6 month jail sentence.                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson recognized  Representatives Geran  Tarr and                                                                    
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins in the audience.                                                                                        
1:08:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  asked for verification  that throughout                                                                    
the process, prosecutors could use an  SEJ as a tool to push                                                                    
towards treatment.                                                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore  agreed  and  clarified  that  an  SEJ  was  a                                                                    
suspended  entry  of  judgement.  The  tool  would  allow  a                                                                    
prosecutor to direct  a defendant to complete  a certain set                                                                    
of conditions  during a  specified time  period. One  of the                                                                    
conditions  could  be  to  go  to  a  residential  treatment                                                                    
program  that an  expert  deemed  appropriate. He  explained                                                                    
that if the  individual complied with all  of the designated                                                                    
conditions, the  case could be dismissed.  He explained that                                                                    
there would  be an arrest  but no conviction on  record even                                                                    
for a Class A misdemeanor.  He confirmed that the tool would                                                                    
still exist under the CS.                                                                                                       
Vice-Chair  Johnston stated  that currently  the tools  were                                                                    
not  in place.  She asked  if the  current system  contained                                                                    
elements  to  promote treatment  if  a  person was  arrested                                                                    
under any of the offenses discussed.                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  replied that  the option  for an  SEJ existed,                                                                    
but there was no incentive  to utilize it. He explained that                                                                    
a  prosecutor  could  direct  a   defendant  to  complete  a                                                                    
residential   treatment  program   and  comply   with  other                                                                    
conditions for up  to a year; however,  the individual would                                                                    
likely take  their chances at  trial because they  would not                                                                    
get  jailtime.   He  underscored  there  was   currently  no                                                                    
incentive.  He elaborated  that  the SEJ  was not  impactful                                                                    
without  having the  potential of  jailtime. He  returned to                                                                    
his  statements  in response  to  a  question by  Vice-Chair                                                                    
Ortiz that  jailtime of 1  year was more significant  than 6                                                                    
months.  The sentence  had to  be substantial  enough for  a                                                                    
defendant  to be  motivated to  follow conditions.  He added                                                                    
that  he  would   prefer  a  Class  C   felony  charge  with                                                                    
sentencing  of  two  years,  but he  believed  the  Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanor  proposed in  the CS  was much  better than  the                                                                    
current law.                                                                                                                    
1:11:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  directed a  question to DOC.  She asked                                                                    
about the difference between a  6-month and 1-year treatment                                                                    
program [in  the DOC correctional  system]. She  asked about                                                                    
the availability of treatment during the two time periods.                                                                      
KELLY    GOODE,   DEPUTY    COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT    OF                                                                    
CORRECTIONS,  asked for  the question  to  be repeated.  She                                                                    
thought  it  may  be better  answered  by  the  department's                                                                    
Health and Rehabilitative Services director.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  noted that currently  there was a  0 to                                                                    
1-year sentence  [for drug  possession]. She  wondered about                                                                    
the tools  available in  the DOC  system for  drug treatment                                                                    
within  prison.   She  asked   about  the   availability  of                                                                    
treatment and  the difference between  a 6-month  and 1-year                                                                    
Ms.  Goode  noted that  it  was  a  great question  for  her                                                                    
colleague  Laura  Brooks.  She  noted  the  topic  had  been                                                                    
covered to some  extent with the committee in  the past. She                                                                    
offered to have Ms. Brooks call in to answer the questions.                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson  requested to have  Ms. Brooks call  in. She                                                                    
expounded on  Vice-Chair Johnston's question.  She requested                                                                    
to  hear about  the  backlog in  the  DOC treatment  program                                                                    
availability. She noted  that a person may  have jailtime of                                                                    
6 months to  a year, but treatment may not  be available for                                                                    
three years.                                                                                                                    
1:14:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  remarked that a  12-month sentence                                                                    
was really  an 8-month sentence  and a 6-month  sentence was                                                                    
really a  4-month sentence due  to the good time  factor. He                                                                    
thought  it appeared  there were  two other  parts of  SB 91                                                                    
that were  good and would remain  in the bill. He  asked for                                                                    
verification that the first item  was the SEJ, which had not                                                                    
existed prior to SB 91.                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore agreed.                                                                                                            
Representative Josephson addressed the  second part of SB 91                                                                    
that would  remain in the  bill. He provided  a hypothetical                                                                    
scenario  where a  person did  not believe  they had  a drug                                                                    
problem and  recreated with cocaine  twice a year.  He asked                                                                    
for verification  that if  caught, the  person would  not be                                                                    
charged  with a  Class C  felony, which  could be  a barrier                                                                    
crime and badge of dishonor;  the individual would receive a                                                                    
wake up call and escape a felony charge under the CS.                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore replied  in the  affirmative, as  long as  any                                                                    
prior usage  or convictions were outside  the timeframe that                                                                    
would elevate the  crime to a felony. The charge  would be a                                                                    
Class  A  misdemeanor  the  first two  times  a  person  was                                                                    
caught; for a third offense,  the charge would increase to a                                                                    
Class C felony.                                                                                                                 
Representative    Sullivan-Leonard    remarked   that    the                                                                    
particular change  in the law  would be  a big step  to help                                                                    
local enforcement  agencies to  make significant  changes in                                                                    
neighborhoods.  She referenced  a  recent  situation when  a                                                                    
person  had heroin  on  them  and had  passed  out in  their                                                                    
vehicle in a  neighborhood. The incident had  been called in                                                                    
and the troopers had released  the individual. She wanted to                                                                    
stop  the  distribution and  use  of  drugs in  the  state's                                                                    
neighborhoods.  She asked  if  the  particular change  would                                                                    
give tools  to state troopers  who were trying to  fight the                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore affirmed.                                                                                                          
Representative Sullivan-Leonard  thought that rehabilitation                                                                    
services  in  the prisons  fell  under  Salvation Army.  She                                                                    
added  that  DOC  was  using  Vivitrol  that  seemed  to  be                                                                    
effective for heroin and OxyContin addictions.                                                                                  
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  had  a  question  related  to  the  costs                                                                    
involved  in starting  to return  to locking  people up.  He                                                                    
asked  when the  appropriate time  would be  to discuss  the                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  communicated  her  preference  to  address                                                                    
costs during  the fiscal  note portion  of the  meeting. The                                                                    
current portion  of the  meeting was  related to  policy. In                                                                    
response  to a  comment by  Representative Sullivan-Leonard,                                                                    
she noted that  the Department of Public  Safety (DPS) would                                                                    
also weigh in on the bill.                                                                                                      
1:18:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  moved  to  the   distribution  of  drugs.  He                                                                    
discussed  that under  SB 91  distribution had  been reduced                                                                    
from Class A  and B felonies to Class B  and C felonies, and                                                                    
the concept of  weight had been introduced to  decide when a                                                                    
crime should  be a Class  B or  C felony. He  explained that                                                                    
the  weight concept  did  damage  to the  way  in which  the                                                                    
framework  for  drugs   had  been  set  up   in  Alaska.  He                                                                    
referenced  an  opinion  that  talked  about  the  different                                                                    
factors that  were important  for a  judge or  prosecutor to                                                                    
evaluate when  looking at a  case on drug  distribution. The                                                                    
differences  that   could  exist   around  the   state  from                                                                    
community to  community and the various  factors were thrown                                                                    
out the  window when  an exact weight  was put  into statute                                                                    
that would treat all communities the same.                                                                                      
He explained  that the  CS removed  the weight  quantity and                                                                    
returned  to  the  original concept.  Additionally,  the  CS                                                                    
reinstated    the    methamphetamine    manufacturing    and                                                                    
distribution  protections that  were previously  in statute.                                                                    
The changes  would return  the law to  its pre-SB  91 status                                                                    
related  to  distribution.  He explained  that  distribution                                                                    
charges   allowed  prosecutors   and   law  enforcement   to                                                                    
aggressively attack  the problem from the  demand and supply                                                                    
sides.  The changes  would work  in  conjunction with  other                                                                    
steps taken  in recent years,  such as creating Alaska  as a                                                                    
high  intensity  drug  trafficking area,  which  brought  in                                                                    
substantial money to fight and prosecute drugs.                                                                                 
1:20:52 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore turned  to arraignment  in Section  49 of  the                                                                    
bill. The bill would allow  48 hours after arrest to arraign                                                                    
a  defendant and  set  bail.  He explained  that  SB 91  had                                                                    
reduced  the  timeframe  from  48  hours  to  24  hours.  He                                                                    
explained  that  prior   to  the  change  made   in  SB  91,                                                                    
defendants appeared within 24 hours  in the vast majority of                                                                    
cases.  He explained  it  was the  preference  of the  Court                                                                    
System  and he  expected the  same would  happen again  even                                                                    
with the change. The change  allowed a bit of flexibility in                                                                    
two areas.  First, the change provided  flexibility if there                                                                    
were  other  reasons it  was  not  possible to  get  someone                                                                    
arraigned  within  24  hours.  Second,  the  change  allowed                                                                    
conversations and  to evaluate whether or  not having judges                                                                    
and prosecutors  work 365  days a  year was  appropriate. He                                                                    
considered whether it  was appropriate to take a  break on a                                                                    
Sunday  and holidays.  He did  not know  the answer,  but it                                                                    
allowed for  the conversation. The  change would  put Alaska                                                                    
in the  "middle of the  pack" in  terms of other  states. He                                                                    
believed there were  only a couple of other  states with the                                                                    
24-hour timeframe.  All other states had  something above 24                                                                    
hours; he noted the outside number was 72 hours.                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore  moved  to   pertaining  to  presumptions  for                                                                    
release on bail  in Sections 50 through 54. He  noted it was                                                                    
the second major  area where there was a  deviation from the                                                                    
governor's bills. The presumptions  would return to the pre-                                                                    
SB 91  law, but with  a significant difference.  The current                                                                    
risk  assessment  tool could  continue  to  be used,  gather                                                                    
data, and be  improved into the future; however,  due to its                                                                    
imperfect nature, the  tool would not be  the driving factor                                                                    
in  bail  release  statutes. He  explained  the  tool  would                                                                    
merely be a factor for the courts to consider.                                                                                  
1:23:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  believed the  risk assessment  tool was                                                                    
supposed to  be reviewed annually.  She asked if  the review                                                                    
process would continue.                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore affirmed. He detailed  that the risk assessment                                                                    
tool was  currently being evaluated  and was supposed  to be                                                                    
validated by June  2019. The concept was to  continue to use                                                                    
it and validate  it into the future to  determine whether it                                                                    
could be  improved. The concept  of the  tool was not  a bad                                                                    
one,  but  the way  it  had  been  executed was  flawed.  He                                                                    
explained  that adjustments  were needed.  The change  would                                                                    
allow  the system  to consider  improving  the tool  without                                                                    
doing further  damage to  the justice system  in the  way it                                                                    
handled pretrial release.                                                                                                       
Vice-Chair  Johnston  communicated  her  understanding  that                                                                    
data collection would continue,  the state would continue to                                                                    
improve on the tool, and it  would continue to be used as an                                                                    
advisory   tool  until   all  parties   felt  it   could  be                                                                    
implemented as desired.                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore agreed  it was the intent. He  relayed that the                                                                    
provision allowed the state to  continue improving the tool.                                                                    
He was  not in  a place  to commit anyone  in the  future to                                                                    
1:25:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter asked  for  verification the  tool                                                                    
would be used, but it  would not be a mandatory requirement.                                                                    
He elaborated  that the judge  would have the  discretion to                                                                    
consider the  tool results and  decide to go in  a different                                                                    
direction.  He believed  the  change  would give  discretion                                                                    
back to the judges (pre-SB 91).                                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore  answered in  the  affirmative.  He cited  the                                                                    
argument that  the courts currently  had the ability  to use                                                                    
discretion.  He  explained  the  problem  was  that  statute                                                                    
constrained the courts  in relation to the  low, medium, and                                                                    
high score  designations. He stressed  that the  tool showed                                                                    
five scores, not three, and  the state had to pigeonhole the                                                                    
data to  fit into  the law that  only had  three categories.                                                                    
The  categories created  presumptions about  what the  court                                                                    
was  supposed to  do. He  clarified that  the change  in the                                                                    
bill  would  decouple the  law  from  the presumptions.  The                                                                    
change  would return  the law  to its  state pre-SB  91, but                                                                    
with the addition of the  assessment tool. Additionally, the                                                                    
bill  would   leave  the  additional   pretrial  supervision                                                                    
available from DOC, which had not existed pre-SB 91.                                                                            
Co-Chair Wilson summarized that the tool was advisory.                                                                          
Vice-Chair  Ortiz referenced  the  following language  [from                                                                    
page 3 of  document from Department of Law  titled "Draft CS                                                                    
HB  49" (copy  on file)]:  "removes  inability to  pay as  a                                                                    
reason for the court to review a bail setting."                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore replied that when  a person appeared before the                                                                    
court and  conditions for  release were  set, if  the person                                                                    
did not get out of jail  within 48 hours, they had the right                                                                    
to  another hearing.  He noted  it  was true  pre-SB 91  and                                                                    
under  current  law.  He highlighted  some  differences  and                                                                    
explained that  when a person  came in for a  second hearing                                                                    
there was supposed to be  some new information the court did                                                                    
not previously  hear. Under SB  91, a person's  inability to                                                                    
pay  or to  post bail  could be  considered new  information                                                                    
(even though  the court had  considered it  originally). The                                                                    
CS would change the law to  its previous state (pre-SB 91) -                                                                    
it specified  that a judge  considered a  person's inability                                                                    
to pay  or post bail at  the first hearing and  did not need                                                                    
to reconsider  it as  new information  at a  subsequent bail                                                                    
hearing. He  added that in his  20 years of practice  he had                                                                    
attended many  bail hearings  where there  had been  a pitch                                                                    
for an  individual to be  released from jail based  on other                                                                    
conditions and  for bail  to be reduced.  He noted  bail was                                                                    
always  reduced  in  that scenario.  The  concept  that  new                                                                    
information  was  required  to  have  bail  adjusted  was  a                                                                    
1:30:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz asked  what the  motivation  would be  for                                                                    
dialing the  provision back. He  asked if the  new provision                                                                    
had created problems. He asked why  there was a need to dial                                                                    
the  law back  to a  pre-SB 91  setting if  the judges  were                                                                    
always considering a person's inability to pay bail.                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore replied it was the  reason a person could get a                                                                    
subsequent bail  hearing. He stated  the court did  not want                                                                    
to end  up with a  daily bail hearing Monday  through Friday                                                                    
and  when  a   person's  inability  to  pay   could  be  new                                                                    
information,  it  could  be new  information  at  each  bail                                                                    
hearing on  Monday through Friday.  At some point  there had                                                                    
to be acknowledgement that the  fact that a person could not                                                                    
post bail was not new  information; it was necessary to give                                                                    
the judge new information in  order to revisit their initial                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked why the provision  had been included                                                                    
if the  ability for  a person  to pay  bail had  always been                                                                    
considered.  He   thought  the  provision  must   have  been                                                                    
included  out  of  fear  or recognition  that  there  was  a                                                                    
disadvantage in the system for low income individuals.                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that the  rationale for  putting the                                                                    
provision in  law was  as he  had articulated.  He explained                                                                    
there had  been multiple bail hearings  occurring time after                                                                    
time. There  had been  recognition that  the number  of bail                                                                    
hearings taking place needed to  be controlled. He clarified                                                                    
they were not  saying just because someone was  of a certain                                                                    
socioeconomic status they should  not be released from jail.                                                                    
He  elaborated  that  the  judge  had  made  an  appropriate                                                                    
determination about  where they  thought the bail  should be                                                                    
and  that   determination  already  considered   a  person's                                                                    
ability to pay. A subsequent  hearing should be reserved for                                                                    
cases  where  new  information   was  brought  forward,  and                                                                    
something  had  changed to  indicate  the  person should  be                                                                    
released. He  characterized monetary  bail was going  out of                                                                    
vogue. He  believed much information  had been  presented to                                                                    
the courts about  the topic. He did not  know whether courts                                                                    
would dramatically change their  process related to monetary                                                                    
bail if the statute was changed.                                                                                                
Representative  LeBon discussed  that  the DOC  commissioner                                                                    
was  required to  determine a  pretrial  risk assessment  as                                                                    
part  of the  process. He  read the  following excerpt  from                                                                    
language on  page 28  of the bill:  The unavailability  of a                                                                    
report prepared  by the pretrial  services officer  under AS                                                                    
33.07." He  asked for  verification that  the unavailability                                                                    
did   not   hold  things   up   and   the  risk   assessment                                                                    
determination may  not be part  of the process in  the first                                                                    
24  to 48  hours. He  asked if  the language  was eliminated                                                                    
from the  bill. He  wondered how  the language  impacted the                                                                    
risk  assessment score.  He kept  hearing that  part of  the                                                                    
problem was the  risk assessment score was  not effective in                                                                    
treating repeat offenders.                                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore replied  that the CS proposed  to eliminate the                                                                    
language Representative  LeBon was  referencing on  page 28.                                                                    
He  explained that  the provision  could  remain in  statute                                                                    
because the pretrial risk assessment  tool would continue to                                                                    
be used.  The language would  be eliminated if  the pretrial                                                                    
risk assessment no longer existed;  however, if the tool was                                                                    
kept, the language  could be kept. He  affirmed the concerns                                                                    
with  the tool  were  based  on the  lack  of  data used  to                                                                    
develop it to  begin with. The tool had been  limited in the                                                                    
number of years and it  had not considered [an individual's]                                                                    
out of  state history. There  were many other types  of data                                                                    
that needed to be collected to refine and improve the tool.                                                                     
1:35:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson acknowledged  Representative  Adam Wool  in                                                                    
the audience.                                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore  turned to  pretrial electronic  monitoring and                                                                    
credit against sentences found in  Section 56. The provision                                                                    
was  a  change from  the  governor's  bills. The  governor's                                                                    
bills  would have  made any  electronic monitoring  pretrial                                                                    
ineligible  against a  sentence. The  CS allowed  electronic                                                                    
monitoring  pretrial credits  available to  be used  against                                                                    
sentences for specific offenses.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson  asked for  verification there  had to  be a                                                                    
determination  made   by  the  courts  and   that  [applying                                                                    
electronic monitoring  pretrial credits  to be  used against                                                                    
sentences] was not automatic.                                                                                                   
Mr. Skidmore confirmed  that a determination had  to be made                                                                    
by the courts. He noted he had never seen it done.                                                                              
Co-Chair Wilson thought there were other attorneys who had.                                                                     
1:37:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson asked  if  the administration  had                                                                    
any  carveouts related  to the  provision.  For example,  he                                                                    
believed the  Senate had been considering  that sex offenses                                                                    
would not  be eligible. He  thought that would  suggest that                                                                    
assaults may be eligible.  He wondered if the administration                                                                    
had an  opinion on the  matter. Secondarily, he  wondered if                                                                    
wearing the electronic monitor was part of treatment.                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that he  believed  there were  some                                                                    
significant policy calls required  by the legislature on the                                                                    
subject. He did  not know that the  administration had drawn                                                                    
a hard and  fast line on which ones should  not be [eligible                                                                    
for  treatment],  but  the administration  would  be  paying                                                                    
close attention to decisions made by the legislature.                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  directed attention to Section  56, page 34,                                                                    
lines  23  through 31  and  page  35,  lines  1 and  2  that                                                                    
included a list  of crimes that would be  ineligible for the                                                                    
credit. She asked Mr. Skidmore to review the items.                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore  explained there was  an existing  provision in                                                                    
law specifying the amount of  credit to be applied towards a                                                                    
sentence from pretrial electronic  monitoring was limited to                                                                    
a year for the offenses [listed  on pages 34 and 35]. The CS                                                                    
changed  the  provision  to  prevent   any  credit  for  the                                                                    
offenses  [listed on  pages 34  and 35]  including a  felony                                                                    
crime against a  person under AS 11.41  (i.e. murder, felony                                                                    
assaults,   sexual  assaults,   sexual   abuse  of   minors,                                                                    
coercion,   kidnapping,  robbery,   and   other),  a   crime                                                                    
involving  domestic  violence  as defined  in  AS  18.66.990                                                                    
(i.e. misdemeanor assaults,  violations of domestic violence                                                                    
protection  orders,  domestic  violence  involving  criminal                                                                    
mischief for damaging property),  sex offenses as defined in                                                                    
AS  12.63.100  (the sex  offense  was  significant it  would                                                                    
preclude  whether  a misdemeanor  or  felony  outside of  AS                                                                    
11.41), an offense under AS  11.71 involving the delivery of                                                                    
a controlled  substance to a  person under 19 years  of age,                                                                    
burglary  in  the  first degree  under  AS  11.46.300  (i.e.                                                                    
breaking  into  a residence  with  the  intent to  commit  a                                                                    
crime), and  arson in  the first  degree under  AS 11.46.400                                                                    
(i.e. setting a residence on  fire and causing someone to be                                                                    
injured including a first responder).                                                                                           
1:41:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson   noted  that  Ms.  Brooks   from  DOC  was                                                                    
available online to answer an earlier question.                                                                                 
Vice-Chair Johnston  discussed that the CS  changed a number                                                                    
of approaches  related to drugs.  She explained that  it was                                                                    
an effort  to help  the public  and potentially  improve the                                                                    
offender's  life via  drug treatment.  She detailed  that in                                                                    
Sections  41  to  48, sentencing  for  drug  possession  had                                                                    
changed to  0 to  365 days.  She asked if  there would  be a                                                                    
difference in treatment availability  for a 6 month sentence                                                                    
versus  a 1  year sentence.  She wondered  if the  treatment                                                                    
capacity existed and if there was a waitlist.                                                                                   
LAURA  BROOKS, DEPUTY  DIRECTOR,  HEALTH AND  REHABILITATION                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT OF  CORRECTIONS (via  teleconference),                                                                    
answered that  DOC determined who went  into treatment based                                                                    
on  a  substance  abuse assessment.  The  department  had  a                                                                    
number  of  different  types of  substance  abuse  treatment                                                                    
programs   available.  She   detailed  that   the  intensive                                                                    
outpatient  substance  abuse  treatment was  only  15  weeks                                                                    
long;  however,  there  had  been about  30  people  on  the                                                                    
waitlist the previous week.  The residential substance abuse                                                                    
treatment  program was  6 months  long  and currently  there                                                                    
were  approximately  60  individuals on  the  waitlist.  She                                                                    
confirmed there were treatment  programs for individuals who                                                                    
were  incarcerated  for less  than  one  year; however,  the                                                                    
department  and  community  as a  whole  struggled  to  find                                                                    
treatment providers. She  explained that waitlists continued                                                                    
to grow,  because there were not  enough treatment providers                                                                    
to meet the demand.                                                                                                             
Ms.  Brooks highlighted  there were  also waitlists  for the                                                                    
treatment  assessments,   which  were  required   before  an                                                                    
individual  could   be  referred  to  a   program.  Once  an                                                                    
individual  was on  a waitlist,  the department  prioritized                                                                    
individuals on the list who  were closest to release and had                                                                    
a  court order  for treatment.  She elaborated  that someone                                                                    
with a shorter sentence would move  to a higher place on the                                                                    
waitlist than another inmate with  a couple of years left to                                                                    
1:45:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  referenced the SEJ tool  and questioned how                                                                    
the  incentive  would work  if  the  individuals were  on  a                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston thought it  was important to compare the                                                                    
current  system with  any changes  they  may try  to put  in                                                                    
place. She  spoke to her  concern about  providing treatment                                                                    
to  the best  of the  state's  abilities. She  asked if  the                                                                    
assessment waitlist was variable or a snapshot in time.                                                                         
Ms. Brooks  answered that there  had been  approximately 100                                                                    
individuals on the assessment waitlist the past week.                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  asked how long  it took to get  through the                                                                    
waitlist.  For example,  she  wondered  how long  individual                                                                    
number 50 would have to wait for an assessment.                                                                                 
Ms. Brooks replied  that it depended on  the facility; there                                                                    
were  a different  number of  providers in  the various  DOC                                                                    
facilities. On  average it  would take about  60 days  for a                                                                    
person to get an assessment.                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson   asked  Mr.   Skidmore  if  SEJ   was  the                                                                    
appropriate acronym.                                                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore  affirmed. The term  stood for  suspended entry                                                                    
of judgement.                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson  explained the SEJ  incentive to  Ms. Brooks                                                                    
that was supposed to enable  an individual to have a reduced                                                                    
sentence  if they  underwent treatment.  She  was trying  to                                                                    
determine what the incentive would  be if a person could not                                                                    
get through the program. She  reasoned the option was only a                                                                    
tool if the  system worked. She reviewed  the potential wait                                                                    
time  to get  into a  program including  60 days  to get  an                                                                    
assessment and another 30 to  60 days to get into treatment.                                                                    
She wanted to know how the tool worked.                                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore  clarified  that  regarding  SEJ  and  placing                                                                    
someone on  conditions to  comply, he  was speaking  about a                                                                    
person who was out of custody.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if individuals  (out of  custody) who                                                                    
agreed  to  the  terms  of  an SEJ  had  to  go  through  an                                                                    
assessment. Additionally, she queried  the average wait time                                                                    
to get into a treatment program.                                                                                                
1:48:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Brooks replied  that a  substance abuse  assessment was                                                                    
required before  a person could enter  any treatment program                                                                    
including the  15-week intensive  outpatient program  or the                                                                    
6-month   residential  program.   She  explained   that  the                                                                    
assessment  determined the  level of  need. She  noted there                                                                    
were  assessment  waitlists in  the  community  as well.  In                                                                    
Anchorage, the waitlist for  an assessment was approximately                                                                    
60 days. Once  an assessment had been completed,  it took an                                                                    
additional 30 to 45 days to get into treatment.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  remarked that it sounded  like completing a                                                                    
sentence may take less time than the incentive option.                                                                          
Vice-Chair  Johnston  addressed  pretrial  and  stated  that                                                                    
under the current system, "we  have nothing." She asked what                                                                    
the treatment  options would be  under the  proposed "carrot                                                                    
and  stick"  approach. She  wondered  if  the Alaska  Mental                                                                    
Health Trust Authority should weigh in on the subject.                                                                          
Co-Chair  Wilson  stressed   the  importance  of  addressing                                                                    
concerns when considering any bill.                                                                                             
Ms. Winkelman  answered that under  pretrial status,  if the                                                                    
court ordered an individual or  they had an agreement to get                                                                    
an assessment,  even if the  underlying charge  indicated an                                                                    
alcohol  or  drug problem,  DOC  did  not  have all  of  the                                                                    
individuals in  a treatment program  or signing up  for one.                                                                    
She  explained that  in  pretrial status  signing  up for  a                                                                    
program  may   appear  that  the  defendant   was  admitting                                                                    
something. She  relayed that, similar  to the  situation for                                                                    
individuals  on probation  and parole,  when a  defendant in                                                                    
pretrial was ordered  to get an assessment  or treatment the                                                                    
shortage  of treatment  providers  caused  delay in  program                                                                    
1:51:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston  spoke  to the  current  program  where                                                                    
individuals were released  and there was no  incentive to go                                                                    
through treatment.  She surmised  that if an  individual did                                                                    
not go  to the courts,  DOC had  no provisions to  help them                                                                    
with treatment.                                                                                                                 
Ms. Winkelman  answered that as a  pretrial service officer,                                                                    
DOC  enforced   the  conditions  the  court   placed  on  an                                                                    
individual.  She elaborated  that  if the  court ordered  an                                                                    
individual  to  get  a  substance  abuse  assessment  or  go                                                                    
through  treatment,  the   pretrial  service  officer  would                                                                    
follow  through  to  ensure   the  defendant  complied.  She                                                                    
reported that DOC  saw many individuals who did  not have an                                                                    
assessment   or  treatment   ordered.  She   explained  that                                                                    
pretrial  service officers  would  give urinalysis  testing,                                                                    
breathalyzers,  etcetera,  if  ordered  by  the  court.  The                                                                    
officers  visited defendants  in the  community to  check in                                                                    
and ensure  they made it to  their next court date.  She did                                                                    
not  have  an exact  number,  but  DOC did  see  individuals                                                                    
ordered into treatment in pretrial status.                                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Johnston believed  the CS  would give  the Court                                                                    
System more flexibility and  encouraging the treatment (even                                                                    
though there was not much treatment available).                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore  agreed. He  thought the  committee's questions                                                                    
centered  around what  the state  was offering  in terms  of                                                                    
assessment when someone was supervised  by DOC. He clarified                                                                    
that was not  what he was talking about when  he spoke about                                                                    
an SEJ.  He explained that an  SEJ would allow the  court to                                                                    
direct  a  defendant to  get  a  risk assessment  done.  The                                                                    
defendant would  return once the assessment  was complete to                                                                    
talk about doing  treatment - whatever time it  took for the                                                                    
individual  to get  through the  treatment, the  court could                                                                    
work  with  them  on  the  SEJ. He  explained  that  if  the                                                                    
individual successfully completed  treatment, the case could                                                                    
be dismissed  and would not  appear on the  person's record.                                                                    
He  clarified   the  issue  was  not   about  the  treatment                                                                    
available at DOC.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson believed the concern  was about the scenario                                                                    
where  a person's  sentence  was shorter  than  the time  it                                                                    
would  take  to  undergo  treatment.  She  thought  it  went                                                                    
against the goal.                                                                                                               
Vice-Chair Johnston  added that she was  trying to determine                                                                    
how effective  the new statute  would be. She  wondered what                                                                    
[treatment] would  be available pretrial and  with the tool,                                                                    
if a  sentence was one  year and was hanging  over someone's                                                                    
head. She noted  that drug addiction was  a terrible disease                                                                    
with  no  great  fix.  She  was trying  to  find  the  right                                                                    
approach  to  provide an  option  for  individuals who  were                                                                    
ready to get treatment.                                                                                                         
Mr. Skidmore replied  it was not about the length  of time a                                                                    
person had  to serve in jail  versus how long it  would take                                                                    
them  to do  treatment. He  clarified that  two things  were                                                                    
offered. First, not  being in jail at  all. Second, avoiding                                                                    
a  conviction on  a person's  record. He  explained the  two                                                                    
incentives  were available  to  people if  they utilized  an                                                                    
SEJ. He  addressed the amount  of time  and the size  of the                                                                    
incentive  being offered.  There  was  a difference  between                                                                    
having a Class C felony with a  sentence of 0 to 2 years and                                                                    
the  potential  of a  felony  conviction  versus a  Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanor. From  the prosecutor's standpoint, the  Class C                                                                    
felony was  preferred and there  was more incentive  for the                                                                    
prosecutor to offer. However, he  believed a conviction on a                                                                    
Class  A  misdemeanor and  jailtime  of  one year  was  much                                                                    
better than the current law.                                                                                                    
1:56:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  noted the  concern was  that addicts  had a                                                                    
small  window of  opportunity. She  thought it  sounded like                                                                    
the window  closed before it  even opened. She asked  if DOC                                                                    
could  utilize   telehealth  to  get  caught   up  with  its                                                                    
Ms.  Brooks  answered  that  DOC   had  started  using  some                                                                    
telehealth options in  the past year. For  example, when DOC                                                                    
lost its program in Seward,  it had also lost the individual                                                                    
who provided assessments. The department  was now able to do                                                                    
assessments  via  telehealth.  She  reported  that  DOC  was                                                                    
looking  at   how  to  expand   telehealth  to   impact  the                                                                    
assessment waitlist and  wait time. She shared  that DOC was                                                                    
moving to a  software-based national standardized assessment                                                                    
tool  for  substance abuse.  The  Department  of Health  and                                                                    
Social Services (DHSS) was also  looking at implementing the                                                                    
tool.  She explained  that  standardizing assessments  would                                                                    
enable  individuals to  take the  assessment with  them when                                                                    
they  left  custody  and  all  treatment  providers  in  the                                                                    
community would  accept the  assessment, which  would reduce                                                                    
wait times and increase efficiency.                                                                                             
Representative Carpenter asked about  the length of time for                                                                    
substance abuse treatment offered in prison.                                                                                    
Ms.  Brooks  answered  there  were  a  couple  of  types  of                                                                    
treatment.  The   residential  treatment  program   was  the                                                                    
highest level of treatment available  and lasted six months.                                                                    
For individuals  who did not  require the  highest treatment                                                                    
level,  there was  an intensive  outpatient substance  abuse                                                                    
program that lasted 15 weeks.                                                                                                   
Representative  Carpenter  highlighted  a scenario  where  a                                                                    
person  was   sentenced  to  eight  months   for  first-time                                                                    
possession   (the   maximum   sentence   for   a   Class   A                                                                    
misdemeanor). He  believed that  given the  time it  took to                                                                    
get assessed  and undergo inpatient treatment,  the person's                                                                    
treatment  would be  about three  months  longer than  their                                                                    
actual sentence.                                                                                                                
1:59:52 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Brooks  answered  that  the  waitlist  fluctuated.  She                                                                    
explained that  priority was given  to individuals  who were                                                                    
closest to their release date.  She agreed that the scenario                                                                    
provided  by Representative  Carpenter could  potentially be                                                                    
the case. She elaborated  that moving individuals closest to                                                                    
their release  date up on  the priority list  sometimes made                                                                    
the wait  between the assessment and  getting into treatment                                                                    
a bit shorter.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson asked when  the standardized assessment tool                                                                    
would be done.                                                                                                                  
Ms.  Brooks answered  that the  training process  had begun,                                                                    
and she believed the system would start in July.                                                                                
Representative  Josephson  observed  that the  law  answered                                                                    
many of  the questions on  suspended entry of  judgement. He                                                                    
referred to  statute specifying that through  agreement with                                                                    
DOL, defense counsel, and the  court, an individual could be                                                                    
put on  probation for  a period  as long  as was  allowed by                                                                    
law. He noted the governor's  bill would expand that law. He                                                                    
surmised that some of the  urgency of the queue and timeline                                                                    
was  not as  exigent as  it  may sound,  albeit those  items                                                                    
needed  to  be  monitored  and  funding  was  necessary.  He                                                                    
pointed out that  a court could not  discharge an individual                                                                    
from  probation prior  to one  year under  the statute.  The                                                                    
statute specified that  the court could not grant  an SEJ if                                                                    
a  person had  violated  the terms  of  their treatment.  He                                                                    
thought the statute covered much of what was desired.                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore  agreed  that  current  statute  provided  the                                                                    
leeway.  The  concept  he  had  heard  from  others  in  the                                                                    
committee was striking while the  iron was hot. He would not                                                                    
dispute  that  idea.  He  confirmed  that  the  statute  was                                                                    
written  so   there  was  a   tool  available;   there  were                                                                    
substantial periods of time, far  more than what was needed,                                                                    
even  for  the treatment  waitlists.  Whether  a person  was                                                                    
still incentivized  was the prudent question.  He stated the                                                                    
issue  was  a policy  call  -  the  CS  made the  first  two                                                                    
possession charges  a Class A  misdemeanor with  jailtime of                                                                    
up  to   one  year,   whereas,  the  governor's   bill  made                                                                    
possession a Class C felony across the board.                                                                                   
Representative Josephson referenced  Mr. Skidmore's response                                                                    
to a  question from Representative Carpenter.  He shared his                                                                    
understanding of  Mr. Skidmore's answer that  under the plan                                                                    
proposed in the CS, an  offender would be living and working                                                                    
in the community and would  be going to treatment, which was                                                                    
the difference from the governor's plan.                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that whenever he  was speaking about                                                                    
an  SEJ it  involved  a  person who  did  not  serve a  jail                                                                    
sentence or  have a  conviction on the  record. The  SEJ had                                                                    
been set  up with  those two  incentives, which  he believed                                                                    
were substantial.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair   Wilson   noted  recognized   Representative   Ivy                                                                    
Spohnholz  (co-chair  of  the  Health  and  Social  Services                                                                    
Committee)  in  the  room.  She  noted  that  Representative                                                                    
Spohnholz  had suggested  looking  at the  DHSS Division  of                                                                    
Behavioral Health  website to view opportunities.  She asked                                                                    
if the backlog in the programs was zero.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  IVY SPOHNHOLZ,  reported  there  was a  real                                                                    
time  list  online  specifying   the  number  of  beds,  the                                                                    
waitlist, and the  number of days it would take  to get into                                                                    
any one  of the  inpatient facilities throughout  the state.                                                                    
There  were   currently  facilities  with  open   beds.  She                                                                    
detailed  that if  there were  people needing  treatment who                                                                    
were  not  incarcerated  and had  been  presented  with  the                                                                    
possibility of jailtime or  the alternative treatment, there                                                                    
was   a  way   to   get  the   individuals  into   treatment                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if the  Health  and Social  Services                                                                    
Committee was  looking at the  specific issue more  in depth                                                                    
in terms of what the state  had to offer and where the holes                                                                    
Representative Spohnholz replied that  the Health and Social                                                                    
Services  Committee would  hold a  hearing on  the topic  on                                                                    
Thursday at 3:00 p.m.                                                                                                           
Vice-Chair  Johnston asked  for  verification  that the  SEJ                                                                    
could be used at any time.  She provided a scenario where an                                                                    
individual had  gone to treatment  for an addiction  and had                                                                    
done  well  for  a  long  period  of  time,  but  they  were                                                                    
approaching  a  third   strike.  She  asked  if   it  was  a                                                                    
circumstance  the  prosecutor would  look  at  the SEJ.  She                                                                    
explained that  it was a  scenario where someone  was trying                                                                    
hard  to deal  with their  addiction and  they fell  off the                                                                    
2:06:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore asked for clarification.                                                                                           
Vice-Chair  Johnston  clarified  that  in  the  hypothetical                                                                    
scenario the person  had two prior misdemeanors  and were on                                                                    
their third strike.                                                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore  stated his understanding  of the  question. He                                                                    
believed Vice-Chair Johnston was  asking when a person would                                                                    
be eligible for the prosecution  on the felony. He confirmed                                                                    
that prosecution on the felony was available at that time.                                                                      
Vice-Chair Johnston  thought a prosecutor could  use the SEJ                                                                    
as  a tool  under the  scenario. She  was concerned  about a                                                                    
person trying  desperately to  get on  the right  track. She                                                                    
pointed  out there  were options  and  it was  not merely  a                                                                    
penal  colony approach.  She wanted  the process  to try  to                                                                    
work with the addiction as best as possible.                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore answered  it was an excellent  point. Under the                                                                    
CS, the first  two offenses would be a  Class A misdemeanor.                                                                    
The third offense  had a stronger penalty  and the incentive                                                                    
was larger. He  explained that on the third  offense the SEJ                                                                    
incentive would enable a person to  avoid up to two years in                                                                    
jail and a  felony conviction. The bill provided  a path for                                                                    
the option that did not exist under current law.                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  if   an  individual  arrested  for                                                                    
possession would have different levels  of access to the SEJ                                                                    
tool  and treatment  facilities.  He asked  if the  person's                                                                    
waitlist  would be  longer  if they  were  arrested in  some                                                                    
communities  versus  others. He  asked  if  the prospect  of                                                                    
getting effective treatment would  be different depending on                                                                    
where a person was.                                                                                                             
Representative  Spohnholz  confirmed  that the  prospect  of                                                                    
getting  treatment was  different in  different communities.                                                                    
She explained that the availability  was elastic and changed                                                                    
over  time  depending on  what  was  happening in  different                                                                    
communities. For  example, Akeela  had two programs  with no                                                                    
waiting  list in  the  Anchorage  area. Additionally,  there                                                                    
were  currently no  waiting lists  in the  Bethel or  Yukon-                                                                    
Kuskokwim  regions.  However,   individuals  in  the  Mat-Su                                                                    
Valley  or  Fairbanks  would have  difficulty  getting  into                                                                    
treatment. She noted that an  individual could travel to get                                                                    
into treatment.  She clarified that the  information she had                                                                    
provided was about inpatient programs.  She noted there were                                                                    
outpatient programs in addition  to the inpatient slots that                                                                    
were  available. Additionally,  there  were other  treatment                                                                    
programs in  the community that  were based more  around the                                                                    
12-step model  rather than  a clinical  model. There  were a                                                                    
wide range of options  available to participate in addiction                                                                    
treatment in Alaska.                                                                                                            
Vice-Chair  Ortiz asked  for verification  that if  a person                                                                    
had  to  travel to  get  treatment,  it  would be  at  their                                                                    
expense and not the state's.                                                                                                    
Representative  Spohnholz  replied  it  could  be,  but  she                                                                    
thought it could  be an element of the  negotiation with the                                                                    
court  as well.  She noted  that  the topic  of payment  for                                                                    
travel to addiction treatment was outside of her purview.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson stated  that  Medicaid  expansion may  also                                                                    
qualify for an inpatient facility.                                                                                              
Representative Carpenter  agreed that  the option in  the CS                                                                    
looked  better  on  paper  and  that  it  resulted  in  more                                                                    
jailtime. However, he questioned  whether it would solve the                                                                    
problem. He  considered that under  the maximum jail  time a                                                                    
person  had  between  8  and  10 months  to  finish  a  drug                                                                    
treatment program  while incarcerated. He was  setting aside                                                                    
the SEJ  option of  doing treatment  outside the  prison. He                                                                    
believed a  judge would have  to give a maximum  sentence in                                                                    
order  for a  person  to be  in prison  long  enough to  get                                                                    
through treatment.  He explained  that if an  individual was                                                                    
given  a 90-day  sentence, they  would  not be  able to  get                                                                    
through  treatment  by  their  mandatory  release  date.  He                                                                    
stressed that while the CS  increased the sentence range, it                                                                    
did not improve the  opportunity for individuals to complete                                                                    
treatment.  He would  like to  see the  process sped  up and                                                                    
encouraged reducing  the amount  of time it  took to  get an                                                                    
assessment  and get  into treatment.  He questioned  whether                                                                    
the law would be improved under the provision.                                                                                  
2:11:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson thought it was  a policy call. She discussed                                                                    
that  in  the  past  when there  had  been  an  incarcerated                                                                    
individual  with   the  ability  to  get   treatment  in  an                                                                    
outpatient facility  it could take  weeks to get  the person                                                                    
into treatment  even when beds  had been available.  She did                                                                    
not  want  government  to  get in  the  way  of  individuals                                                                    
getting  treatment. She  asked  Representative Spohnholz  to                                                                    
include it in discussions.                                                                                                      
Representative Spohnholz agreed.                                                                                                
2:12:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated  the comments by Representative                                                                    
Spohnholz. He  wondered if it  was accurate that  Alaska was                                                                    
facing a significant shortage of treatment options overall.                                                                     
Representative   Spohnholz  confirmed   that  there   was  a                                                                    
shortage  of  available  treatment options  in  Alaska.  She                                                                    
encouraged Co-Chair Wilson to  share the website information                                                                    
with  the entire  committee. She  detailed that  the website                                                                    
was updated about  every 24 hours at  regular intervals. The                                                                    
local   providers    provided   the    inpatient   treatment                                                                    
information to  DHSS. She reported  that there  continued to                                                                    
be  some challenges  with capital  facilities for  inpatient                                                                    
treatment in  Alaska. The  state had  refinanced the  way it                                                                    
paid for addiction treatment.                                                                                                   
Representative  Spohnholz explained  that  in  the past  the                                                                    
state had funded addiction treatment  solely by grants - the                                                                    
legislature  gave  DHSS  a certain  amount  of  funding  for                                                                    
treatment and  after the money  was spent there had  been no                                                                    
more  treatment available  regardless  of  what the  opioid,                                                                    
alcohol,  or  other  substance addictions  there  were.  The                                                                    
state had  refinanced several years  back and had gone  to a                                                                    
Medicaid billing  model for addiction treatment.  The change                                                                    
allowed the  state to  pay for  more addiction  treatment in                                                                    
response  to  the  opioid epidemic.  Once  the  problem  was                                                                    
resolved,  the state  would spend  less  money on  addiction                                                                    
treatment; the  model was very efficient.  The model allowed                                                                    
the  state  to  pay  for  services  and  operations  of  the                                                                    
facility, but  it did  not allow for  any investment  of the                                                                    
capital  facilities  needed  to  ensure  there  were  enough                                                                    
slots. There was  still a capital problem that  needed to be                                                                    
Representative  Spohnholz   relayed  there  had   been  some                                                                    
federal  money over  the past  several years  that had  been                                                                    
granted out to the communities  in Fairbanks and Juneau. The                                                                    
state needed more in order to  meet the need. The state also                                                                    
needed  to address  workforce shortage  needs;  there was  a                                                                    
shortage  of behavioral  health  providers  available to  do                                                                    
substance abuse  treatment. She highlighted that  the Health                                                                    
and Social Services Committee would  hear about the topic at                                                                    
its Thursday afternoon meeting.                                                                                                 
2:15:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked  to hear from Mr.  Steve Williams with                                                                    
the  Alaska  Mental  Health  Trust  Authority  (AMHTA).  She                                                                    
queried what AMHTA was doing regarding treatment.                                                                               
2:15:53 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVE  WILLIAMS,  CHIEF  OPERATING  OFFICER,  ALASKA  MENTAL                                                                    
HEALTH  TRUST  AUTHORITY (via  teleconference),  appreciated                                                                    
the  conversation  that was  occurring  because  he did  not                                                                    
believe the  particular dialogue had received  the weight it                                                                    
deserved  in  discussions  on  the  bill.  He  believed  the                                                                    
conversation highlighted the necessity  between looking at a                                                                    
criminal justice  problem through  a public health  lens. He                                                                    
noted that public  safety had to be first  and foremost, but                                                                    
it  was   necessary  to  consider   what  was   driving  the                                                                    
underlying issues  for the  individual causing  contact with                                                                    
the criminal  justice system. It  was necessary  to consider                                                                    
how to respond  and how to get the individual  access to the                                                                    
needed  treatment. He  thought Representative  Spohnholz was                                                                    
accurate  in  her  description  of  the  access  issues  and                                                                    
available access to treatment.                                                                                                  
Mr.  Williams believed  it was  important  to remember  that                                                                    
having the leverage  of a sentence did  not necessarily mean                                                                    
someone  was  going  to access  treatment.  He  stated  that                                                                    
addiction  is  a disease  and  the  motivations and  use  of                                                                    
particular  substances  vary.   The  organization  had  been                                                                    
engaged in  the issue  for several  years and  had partnered                                                                    
with DHSS  on increasing access to  treatment. Additionally,                                                                    
AMHTA  had partnered  with the  Court System,  DOL, and  the                                                                    
Public Defender Agency on  different diversion approaches to                                                                    
address those interested in  treatment. The organization was                                                                    
working to  provide opportunities for individuals  to engage                                                                    
in  treatment,  when  public  safety was  not  at  risk.  He                                                                    
referenced  therapeutic   courts.  He  relayed   that  AMHTA                                                                    
partnered with  DOC on  several of  the programs  Ms. Brooks                                                                    
had  discussed   earlier,  in   addition  to   some  release                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  thanked Mr.  Williams for  being available.                                                                    
She noted it was only the beginning of the conversation.                                                                        
2:18:31 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked  Mr. Skidmore about the  SEJ tool. He                                                                    
wondered how long the tool had been available.                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore  responded that the  SEJ tool had  been enacted                                                                    
under SB 91 in 2016.                                                                                                            
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked for  verification that  the district                                                                    
attorneys   and   defense   weighed   in   on   the   issue.                                                                    
Alternatively, he  wondered if it  was up to  the prosecutor                                                                    
to determine whether to use the SEJ.                                                                                            
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that  use of  the  SEJ required  the                                                                    
prosecution and defense to agree on its use.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there  were any statistics showing                                                                    
how often  the tool had  been used by district  attorneys or                                                                    
prosecutors since it became available.                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore  replied that the SEJ  had not been in  use for                                                                    
issues  related  to  drugs  and  drug  prosecutions  because                                                                    
possession  crimes had  zero  jailtime  available since  the                                                                    
implementation of  SB 91; therefore, there  was no incentive                                                                    
for anyone to try to engage  in an SEJ for a drug possession                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  tool would be used frequently                                                                    
if the  jailtime was increased  to one year. He  surmised it                                                                    
would still be up to  the prosecution to decide whether they                                                                    
wanted to  use the tool. He  thought there may be  some good                                                                    
reasons why the prosecution may not want to use the tool.                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore  agreed that the  SEJ required both  parties to                                                                    
agree to  its use. He  expected there would be  an increased                                                                    
use of  the tool,  but he  did not  know what  the increased                                                                    
percentage  would  be.  He   elaborated  that  the  criminal                                                                    
justice  system was  based on  discretion because  the facts                                                                    
and  defendants  varied  in  each  case;  the  tool  may  be                                                                    
appropriate  in  one  case  but  not  another.  Without  the                                                                    
increased sentencing,  the SEJ  would not  be used  for drug                                                                    
offenses.  He  stated  that  the   current  system  was  not                                                                    
Representative Josephson  referenced the  current law  as it                                                                    
related to  the SEJ.  He referred to  an earlier  comment by                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter that  it appeared  a person  would                                                                    
opt to  go to jail  if it was  shorter [than an  option with                                                                    
the SEJ]. He observed that  under subsections (a) and (e) of                                                                    
the law, it  was not possible to know what  the sentence may                                                                    
be. He  thought it  was only possible  to know  the sentence                                                                    
may be up to one year.                                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore replied  that  the SEJ  process  began with  a                                                                    
change of plea hearing. He  explained that a defendant would                                                                    
plead no  contest or guilty  and before the judge  entered a                                                                    
judgement, the  entry of the  judgement would  be suspended.                                                                    
He explained no  conviction or sentence was  entered; no one                                                                    
knew  what the  outcome  would  be. He  explained  it was  a                                                                    
person's opportunity to try to  avoid potential jailtime and                                                                    
a conviction. He elaborated that  if the outcome failed, the                                                                    
individual would  go before  the judge  again and  the judge                                                                    
would  accept the  plea, enter  judgement, and  hand down  a                                                                    
2:23:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  asked if he was  correct in saying                                                                    
that  all  of  the  bills  (including  Representative  Chuck                                                                    
Kopp's  HB 10,  HB 49,  and the  CS for  HB 49)  moved to  a                                                                    
felony on the third offense.  He asked if the question under                                                                    
consideration was  whether jailtime should be  available for                                                                    
the  first   two  misdemeanor  offenses  as   incentive  for                                                                    
individuals to go through treatment.                                                                                            
Mr.  Skidmore   confirmed  that  of  the   bills  listed  by                                                                    
Representative Josephson,  the CS was  the only one  to have                                                                    
jailtime associated with the first two offenses.                                                                                
Representative  LeBon  asked  if  the  provision  was  a  "3                                                                    
strikes, you're  out" approach to  treatment. He  provided a                                                                    
scenario where a person tried  and failed at treatment after                                                                    
their  first two  [drug]  offenses. He  asked  if the  third                                                                    
offense was a Class C felony.                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore confirmed  that the  CS would  make the  third                                                                    
offense a Class C felony.                                                                                                       
Representative  LeBon  asked  how the  individual  would  be                                                                    
treated by the  court if they failed on  their third attempt                                                                    
and came back a fourth time.                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore responded  that if a person was  convicted of a                                                                    
Class C felony for their  third offense, on a fourth offense                                                                    
the  parties  would  evaluate the  timeframe  in  which  the                                                                    
person came back.  He explained that two of  the first three                                                                    
offenses would need  to be within the  timeframe the offense                                                                    
would be a  Class C felony (set  at 10 years in  the CS); if                                                                    
within the  10-year period,  the fourth  offense would  be a                                                                    
second-time Class  C felony. He believed  the sentence range                                                                    
was 2 to 4 years, but he would have to double check.                                                                            
2:25:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz   asked  Mr.   Skidmore  if  any   of  the                                                                    
governor's  bills  included  the  SEJ tool  as  a  means  of                                                                    
criminal reform.                                                                                                                
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that none  of the  governor's bills                                                                    
removed the  SEJ from law;  it would  remain in the  law and                                                                    
had been one of the items discussed by the administration.                                                                      
Co-Chair Wilson  indicated the  committee would  break until                                                                    
2:35 p.m.                                                                                                                       
2:26:33 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:36:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  noted  they  would  begin  with  probation                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  addressed probation  lengths in Section  58 of                                                                    
the bill.  He detailed  that the  CS would  return probation                                                                    
lengths to the maximum period that  existed prior to SB 91 -                                                                    
25  years for  sexual felonies  and 10  years for  all other                                                                    
crimes. He  noted that  for an  SEJ, the  amount of  time an                                                                    
individual  had  time  to comply  with  conditions  such  as                                                                    
treatment  was   based  on  how   long  the   probation  was                                                                    
available. He  stated that returning  probation back  to the                                                                    
maximum periods was important for multiple reasons.                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Ortiz recognized  the  severity  of sex  offense                                                                    
crimes; however,  he thought  25 years seemed  to be  a long                                                                    
time on probation. He asked  if statistics showed the length                                                                    
of  time was  necessary in  order to  prevent recurrence  or                                                                    
promote  rehabilitation. He  remarked that  probation of  25                                                                    
years taxed the system  including the probation officers. He                                                                    
asked if that timeframe was necessary.                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore  answered that the  containment model  used for                                                                    
sex offenders  was based on  probation and based on  what an                                                                    
offender does  on probation. He  underscored the  success of                                                                    
the model. The lengthy  probation allowed the justice system                                                                    
to keep  offenders on  the containment  model to  reduce the                                                                    
risk of  reoffense. He  could not say  whether 25  years was                                                                    
the magic  number, but  the longer someone  was kept  on the                                                                    
containment model, the better.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair    Wilson    expressed   appreciation    for    the                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  turned to  caps  on  sanctions for  technical                                                                    
violations  or absconding  from  probation  (Section 55)  or                                                                    
parole. He  noted that  some of the  caps were  addressed in                                                                    
the  repealer  section  of  the  legislation.  The  caps  on                                                                    
sanctions for  technical violations referred to  the concept                                                                    
that  someone  was placed  on  probation  or parole  with  a                                                                    
series   of  conditions.   Conditions   could  include   the                                                                    
requirement for  an individual to report  to their probation                                                                    
or parole officer on a  periodic basis, maintain employment,                                                                    
notify  the  justice  system  of  any  address  change,  not                                                                    
consume alcohol,  treatment, no  contact with  children, and                                                                    
other. A violation of the  conditions, other than committing                                                                    
a  new  crime  or  failing   to  comply  with  sex  offender                                                                    
treatment, was deemed to be a technical violation.                                                                              
Mr. Skidmore explained  that one of the efforts  under SB 91                                                                    
was  to   model  the  whole  system   on  PACE  [Probationer                                                                    
Accountability with Certain Enforcement].  The idea was that                                                                    
when people  violated their probation or  parole, they would                                                                    
immediately  receive a  sanction.  He noted  there had  been                                                                    
studies showing the  success of the approach.  The state had                                                                    
attempted  to  replicate  the  model,  but  the  effort  had                                                                    
failed. He  explained that failure had  occurred for several                                                                    
reasons. First,  the state could  not make the  timeframe to                                                                    
get to  adjudication fast enough.  Second, in  PACE programs                                                                    
the offender agreed to be  on the program so they recognized                                                                    
what the sanction would be  and that it would happen quickly                                                                    
when  they  committed  a   technical  violation.  Third,  it                                                                    
responded  to a  single  allegation and  the  caps were  not                                                                    
written into  the law  under the PACE  program the  way they                                                                    
were in statute.                                                                                                                
2:41:55 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  explained  that when  a  person  committed  a                                                                    
violation of probation  or parole, a petition  was filed. He                                                                    
detailed that it did not  matter if the petition alleged one                                                                    
or  multiple violations.  When the  person was  arrested and                                                                    
placed  in jail,  there were  statutes  that prohibited  the                                                                    
person  from  being  held  in   jail  longer  than  the  cap                                                                    
available for  the particular petition (currently  3, 5, and                                                                    
10 days  for the first three  violations respectively). Once                                                                    
the person was released,  their adjudication hearing had not                                                                    
yet  happened,  and  some  individuals  ended  up  violating                                                                    
probation or  parole again.  He explained  that the  cap was                                                                    
still 3 days  under the scenario because  the individual had                                                                    
not yet  been adjudicated -  they were still under  the same                                                                    
petition and  it did  not matter  how many  allegations they                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore clarified that the  situation did not happen in                                                                    
every case, but he  illustrated scenarios that could happen.                                                                    
He stressed  there were times  when an  individual committed                                                                    
10   different   violations    before   getting   to   their                                                                    
adjudication, yet the cap was limited  to 3, 5, and 10 days.                                                                    
He explained  it had created  a scenario where there  was no                                                                    
incentive  to  follow  the   conditions  while  waiting  for                                                                    
adjudication. He  underscored that the system  did not work.                                                                    
The  CS would  return the  law  to its  prior state  without                                                                    
caps. He reminded the committee  the bill contained a number                                                                    
of compromises.  The governor's original bills  talked about                                                                    
eliminating administrative sanctions.  He elaborated that SB                                                                    
91 had  required DOC to develop  an administrative sanctions                                                                    
program specifying that if  an individual violated probation                                                                    
or  parole,  the department  would  attempt  to address  the                                                                    
violation without  filing a  petition. The  department would                                                                    
attempt to address the violation administratively.                                                                              
Mr.  Skidmore  reported  that  the   CS  did  not  eliminate                                                                    
administrative  sanctions. He  detailed that  administrative                                                                    
sanctions had  been utilized 21,000  times in the  two years                                                                    
they had  been available. He emphasized  that administrative                                                                    
sanctions were  the vehicle  to get  to swift  sanctions and                                                                    
something  other  than jail.  Once  the  sanction was  used,                                                                    
there would no longer be a  3, 5, and 10-day cap limitation.                                                                    
He  noted that  the court  or parole  board could  determine                                                                    
there would  be no jailtime  for a petition, but  they would                                                                    
have full discretion to determine the appropriate action.                                                                       
2:45:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked whether  a new sanction  level could                                                                    
be  added  for individuals  who  violate  at higher  levels,                                                                    
instead of the approach outlined by Mr. Skidmore.                                                                               
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that the  CS attempted  an approach                                                                    
that would  include something in statute.  He explained that                                                                    
the system was  built on discretion and when  it was limited                                                                    
too much,  particularly through statutes, it  broke. Caps on                                                                    
technical violations was probably one  of the top two things                                                                    
that prosecutors  communicated had been broken  via criminal                                                                    
justice reform  [SB 91].  He emphasized  the high  amount of                                                                    
litigation  over the  particular concept.  He stressed  that                                                                    
the  change needed  to take  place  in order  to repeal  and                                                                    
replace aspects of SB 91.  He reiterated that administrative                                                                    
sanctions would remain  in place, but the  caps on technical                                                                    
violations would be eliminated.                                                                                                 
2:47:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  asked the director  of the Parole  Board to                                                                    
weigh in on the topic.                                                                                                          
JEFF EDWARDS,  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAROLE  BOARD, DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF  CORRECTIONS  (via  teleconference),  reported  that  Mr.                                                                    
Skidmore had  accurately portrayed  the concerns  the Parole                                                                    
Board had with  the existing caps, which  the board referred                                                                    
to as  the "3,  5, and  10 system."  He elaborated  that the                                                                    
caps had been a dueling system  with PACE, which was a swift                                                                    
and  certain  sanctions  program adopted  for  the  paroling                                                                    
authority. He explained that PACE  had been intended to deal                                                                    
with  violations swiftly  with most  certain arrest;  it had                                                                    
been an  efficient way  to deal  with violations  to prevent                                                                    
them  from dragging  out for  months. The  board found  that                                                                    
when  an individual  committed a  technical violation  (e.g.                                                                    
drug  or  alcohol use  or  failing  to  report to  a  parole                                                                    
officer), 3 days had turned  into part of doing business for                                                                    
those individuals  on supervision. He furthered  that by the                                                                    
time  the  individuals had  reached  their  third or  fourth                                                                    
violation, the  board had  discretion to  impose significant                                                                    
jailtime;  whereas, the  3, 5,  and  10 system  was part  of                                                                    
doing business.                                                                                                                 
2:48:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to early  termination of  probation and                                                                    
parole. He  explained that  prior to SB  91, a  probation or                                                                    
parole  officer had  the ability  to  make a  recommendation                                                                    
either  to  the  court  or  Parole  Board  respectively.  He                                                                    
explained  that   the  officers  could  report   that  their                                                                    
probationer or parolee  was doing well and  no longer needed                                                                    
to be on  probation or parole; the  officers could recommend                                                                    
ending an  individual's probation or parole  early. Under SB                                                                    
91, instead  of having  a recommendation  by an  officer, it                                                                    
would be called  a recommendation, but it  would be required                                                                    
to occur in statute after a certain period of time.                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore  elaborated that it  was no longer  a judgement                                                                    
call made  by the probation  or parole officer but  would be                                                                    
automatic under statute. As long as  a person did not have a                                                                    
violation  in a  specific  period  of time  (e.g.  12 or  18                                                                    
months),  the officer  had to  recommend their  probation or                                                                    
parole should  end. He pointed  out that  the recommendation                                                                    
was  not   based  on  progress   or  anything  left   to  be                                                                    
accomplished  by  an  individual.  He did  not  believe  the                                                                    
process made any  logical sense. The CS  would eliminate the                                                                    
provision, but the probation and  parole officers would have                                                                    
discretion to  make a true  recommendation to  end probation                                                                    
or parole  early. He  explained the change  would end  a one                                                                    
size fits all provision.                                                                                                        
2:51:37 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore turned to felony  sentencing in Sections 60 and                                                                    
61  in   the  bill.  He  explained   the  felony  sentencing                                                                    
provisions  in the  CS contained  multiple compromises  from                                                                    
the  governor's original  bills. The  provisions applied  to                                                                    
Class C, Class B, and Class  A felonies. He reviewed that SB                                                                    
91  reduced   Class  C  felonies   to  probation   only.  He                                                                    
elaborated that  SB 54 had returned  to the law prior  to SB                                                                    
91 that carried a sentence of 0  to 2 years for a first time                                                                    
offense. The second  and third [Class C]  felonies were also                                                                    
reduced in SB 91 and were  not adjusted in SB 54. He pointed                                                                    
out that  Class C felonies were  not listed in the  bill. He                                                                    
expounded that  although the  governor's bills  would adjust                                                                    
the [presumptive ranges  for] second and third  time Class C                                                                    
felonies  to their  pre-SB 91  status, the  CS left  Class C                                                                    
felonies alone. The sentence ranges were  1 to 4 years for a                                                                    
second  offense and  2 to  5 years  for a  third offense  (5                                                                    
years was  the maximum sentence  for a Class C  felony). The                                                                    
sentencing ranges  had not  been changed  in the  CS because                                                                    
they  were   deemed  sufficient   for  courts   to  exercise                                                                    
discretion appropriately.                                                                                                       
Mr.  Skidmore  reported  that  Sections 60  and  61  of  the                                                                    
legislation addressed  Class A and  B felonies. For  Class A                                                                    
felonies, SB 91  the sentencing range had been  reduced by 2                                                                    
years - from 5  to 8 years to 3 to 6 years  for a first time                                                                    
felony. The CS  would increase the sentencing range  to 4 to                                                                    
7 years for a first offense.  He stated that the pattern was                                                                    
repeated for a second and third offense.                                                                                        
Mr.  Skidmore  addressed  Class  B  felonies.  For  Class  B                                                                    
felonies, SB 91  the sentencing range had  been reduced from                                                                    
1 to 3 years  to 0 to 2 years for a  first time offense. The                                                                    
CS would  return the sentencing range  to 1 to 3  years. The                                                                    
CS would increase  the sentencing from 2 to 5  years to 2 to                                                                    
6 years for a second offense and  from 4 to 10 years to 5 to                                                                    
10 years  for a third  offense. Those changes  concluded the                                                                    
significant   deviations  in   presumptive  sentencing   for                                                                    
felonies from the governor's bills.                                                                                             
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the  proposed adjustments had been                                                                    
made with the goal of deterring crime.                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore asked  if Vice-Chair  Ortiz  was referring  to                                                                    
adjustments in the CS or prior adjustments.                                                                                     
Vice-Chair  Ortiz clarified  he  was  asking about  proposed                                                                    
adjustments in the CS.                                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that  national studies  demonstrated                                                                    
for  the last  30  years  crime rates  had  been reduced  by                                                                    
increasing incarceration. The bill focused  on Class A and B                                                                    
felonies  (the  more  serious offenses),  not  the  Class  C                                                                    
felonies (lower level  offenses). The bill aimed  to do what                                                                    
proponents of SB 91 wanted,  which was to focus resources on                                                                    
the  most serious  offenses.  He explained  that  SB 91  had                                                                    
reduced all  felony sentencing,  excluding sex  offenses and                                                                    
murder.   The  CS   would  focus   resources  on   the  most                                                                    
significant crimes - Class A and  B felonies - to combat the                                                                    
escalation in crime rates.                                                                                                      
2:56:54 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz surmised  the answer  to his  question was                                                                    
yes and it  was the belief of the  administration and/or the                                                                    
prosecution that  increasing sentences  for "these  types of                                                                    
felonies" acted as a deterrent to crime.                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore agreed.                                                                                                            
Representative   Josephson   highlighted   that   when   the                                                                    
legislature  had restored  first-time  Class  C felonies  in                                                                    
November 2017  (through a floor  amendment), it  had brought                                                                    
the offense  at parity  with the  first-time Class  B felony                                                                    
offense. He understood  it was allowable but  did not create                                                                    
the normal gradation.                                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore affirmed.                                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore  turned to misdemeanor sentencing;  Class A and                                                                    
B misdemeanors were the two  sentencing levels. He explained                                                                    
that prior to SB 91 the ranges had  been 0 to 365 days for a                                                                    
Class  A  misdemeanor  and  0  to 90  days  for  a  Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanor.  Under  SB  91,  a large  portion  of  Class  A                                                                    
misdemeanors had been reduced to  a new presumptive range of                                                                    
0 to 30 days. The previous  version of HB 49 had proposed to                                                                    
increase the range to 0 to  90 days. The CS would return the                                                                    
sentencing range to its pre-SB 91 range of 0 to 365 days.                                                                       
Mr. Skidmore addressed sentencing  for Class B misdemeanors.                                                                    
The provision had  not been altered from the  original HB 49                                                                    
and would increase  the sentencing range from  the current 0                                                                    
to 10  days to 0 to  30 days (prior  to SB 91 the  range had                                                                    
been  0  to 90  days).  He  pointed  out  the change  was  a                                                                    
difference between the governor's bills and the CS.                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the section references.                                                                               
Mr. Skidmore replied Sections 64 and 65.                                                                                        
2:59:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore   reviewed  presumptive  sentencing   for  sex                                                                    
offenses in  Section 66.  He referred  back to  the Williams                                                                    
case  he had  mentioned early  on  in the  meeting that  the                                                                    
legislative  intent  addressed.  He explained  there  was  a                                                                    
sentencing range for a first  offense. The CS clarified that                                                                    
any prior felony  counted as a prior  felony for presumptive                                                                    
sentencing  in sex  cases. In  the Williams  case the  court                                                                    
specified that  the law was  written in  such a way  that an                                                                    
offense could be elevated to  a higher sentencing level if a                                                                    
prior  felony was  a sex  offense  only. For  example, if  a                                                                    
person was convicted of sexual  assault and they had a prior                                                                    
burglary  felony,  the  burglary  could  not  result  in  an                                                                    
increased   sentence.  He   stated   [that  for   sentencing                                                                    
purposes] it was  as though the prior felony  did not exist.                                                                    
He  stressed  it  did  not  matter if  it  was  burglary,  a                                                                    
physical assault,  arson, or other. Only  sex offenses would                                                                    
elevate  the  presumptive  sentencing. He  underscored  that                                                                    
when  the  law  had  passed,   it  had  not  been  what  the                                                                    
legislature had been told. The  CS would mean prior felonies                                                                    
of  any kind  would trigger  an increased  presumptive range                                                                    
for a sex offense.                                                                                                              
3:01:55 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore turned to a  path to restore a driver's license                                                                    
that was  suspended or canceled  due to a felony  DUI. Under                                                                    
current  law,  an  individual's  license  was  suspended  or                                                                    
revoked  permanently  for  committing   a  felony  DUI.  The                                                                    
provision would allow a person  to obtain a driver's license                                                                    
if they  had been  convicted of  a felony  DUI that  was not                                                                    
associated  with a  crime against  a person  (e.g. vehicular                                                                    
assault), their  license had been  revoked for 10  years and                                                                    
in the  preceding 10  years the person  had not  committed a                                                                    
new criminal  offense. It  was the same  provision in  HB 49                                                                    
from the House Judiciary Committee.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the provision was in Section 74.                                                                       
Mr.  Skidmore affirmed.  He referenced  Sections  74 and  75                                                                    
related to felony DUI and  felony refusal respectively; both                                                                    
used  the  term  criminal   offense  (any  criminal  offense                                                                    
applied). Statutes also specified  there were certain crimes                                                                    
where a  person would not  have the ability to  obtain their                                                                    
license. He  detailed that the crimes  included murder under                                                                    
AS  11.41.200  to  AS  11.41.210  and  other  crimes  in  AS                                                                    
11.41.280  and AS  11.41.281. He  shared that  the provision                                                                    
had not  been included in  the governor's bills, but  it was                                                                    
included in  the CS and  in other bills  under consideration                                                                    
by the  House and Senate.  He added that  the administration                                                                    
supported the concept.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair Wilson  believed an individual  was required  to go                                                                    
through  some type  of  treatment as  well.  She pointed  to                                                                    
Section 74, page 51 of the bill.                                                                                                
3:05:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  replied by reading the  requirements listed in                                                                    
the bill (Section 74, page 51):                                                                                                 
     (1) may restore the driver's license if                                                                                    
          (A) the license  has been revoked for  a period of                                                                    
          at least 10 years;                                                                                                    
          (B)  the  person  has  not  been  convicted  of  a                                                                    
          criminal  offense in  the 10  years preceding  the                                                                    
          request for restoration of the license; and                                                                           
          (C)  the   person  provides  proof   of  financial                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore believed  the  concept  mentioned by  Co-Chair                                                                    
Wilson was in subsection (2):                                                                                                   
     (2) shall restore the driver's license if                                                                                  
          (A) the  person has  been granted  limited license                                                                    
          privileges   under   AS   28.15.201(g)   and   has                                                                    
          successfully  driven  under that  limited  license                                                                    
          for  three   years  without  having   the  limited                                                                    
          license privileges revoked;                                                                                           
          (B)  the  person   has  successfully  completed  a                                                                    
          court-ordered    treatment   program    under   AS                                                                    
          28.35.028  or a  rehabilitative treatment  program                                                                    
          under AS 28.15.201(h)                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if an  individual would  try to  get                                                                    
their limited license in year 7 or 10.                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore  clarified it had  been some time since  he had                                                                    
studied all  of the  statutes. He believed  limited licenses                                                                    
were  provided under  particular  circumstances as  outlined                                                                    
under subsections  (1) and (2)  [of Section 74].  There were                                                                    
two  paths   an  individual   could  take:   subsection  (1)                                                                    
addressed   the  10-year   timeframe   and  subsection   (2)                                                                    
addressed what  an eligible person  would have to do  to get                                                                    
their limited license restored.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  asked for verification that  the first path                                                                    
pertained only to the 10-year timeframe.                                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore affirmed.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair Wilson considered the second path.                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore interjected that the  second path was available                                                                    
when  a person  had [successfully  driven under  the limited                                                                    
license for] three years.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Wilson needed more clarification.                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore  queried if Co-Chair  Wilson was asking  when a                                                                    
person was eligible for a limited license.                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Wilson replied  in the  affirmative. She  observed                                                                    
that Ms. Mead was available to answer the question.                                                                             
Ms.  Mead  confirmed  that  under  [Section  74]  subsection                                                                    
(o)(1) if  10 years had passed  and no other crime  had been                                                                    
committed,  a  person was  eligible  to  have their  license                                                                    
restored   by  the   Division  of   Motor  Vehicles   (DMV).                                                                    
Subsection (2) had been added in  SB 91 because the bill had                                                                    
added a means for individuals  in therapeutic court to get a                                                                    
limited driver's  license if they  participated successfully                                                                    
in therapeutic court for at  least 6 months or had graduated                                                                    
and they fulfilled other  responsibilities (e.g. the ability                                                                    
to show proof  of insurance). She continued that  SB 91 also                                                                    
added a provision allowing  individuals in locations without                                                                    
a  therapeutic  court  to  seek   a  sobriety  hearing  that                                                                    
required a person to show they  had been sober for 18 months                                                                    
and  that they  had been  through a  treatment program  that                                                                    
mirrored or imitated the  requirements of therapeutic court.                                                                    
The outlined  options reflected the two  avenues individuals                                                                    
could obtain a limited driver's  license after a felony DUI.                                                                    
She noted that  an individual could have  their full license                                                                    
restored  if  they had  been  successful  under the  limited                                                                    
license for three years.                                                                                                        
3:09:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Wilson   referenced  the   DMV's   administrative                                                                    
process. She  asked if the  DMV could still  require certain                                                                    
things  to be  on a  person's  car (e.g.  a breathalyzer  or                                                                    
other). She was trying to  determine how or if the statutory                                                                    
requirements connected with the DMV process.                                                                                    
Ms.  Mead answered  that  after  a felony  DUI  part of  the                                                                    
required   judgement   included   a   fine   and   jailtime.                                                                    
Additionally, if  and when an  individual got  their license                                                                    
back,  they  were  required to  use  an  ignition  interlock                                                                    
device  for  a set  period  of  time. The  timeframe  varied                                                                    
depending on which felony DUI  it was [i.e. first offense or                                                                    
other]. Individuals who were eligible  to have their license                                                                    
restored would still have the  ignition interlock device for                                                                    
the  court   ordered  timeframe  specified  when   they  had                                                                    
received their sentence.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  for  verification  the  order  came                                                                    
through the court and not the DMV.                                                                                              
Ms. Mead confirmed that the  order was required to come from                                                                    
the court at the time of sentencing.                                                                                            
Mr.  Skidmore  moved  to  the  topic of  out  of  state  sex                                                                    
offender registration.                                                                                                          
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked if  Mr.  Skidmore  had covered  the                                                                    
provision   pertaining    to   driving   with    a   license                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  answered that he had  accidentally skipped the                                                                    
provision in Section 73 of the legislation.                                                                                     
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  if  the  provision  pertaining  to                                                                    
driving  with a  license suspended/revoked/canceled  related                                                                    
directly  to the  previous  provision  regarding a  driver's                                                                    
license  after a  felony DUI.  He considered  that the  bill                                                                    
returned  driving  with  a license  suspended  (DWLS)  to  a                                                                    
crime. He  asked if the clock  would be reset at  another 10                                                                    
years  if a  person  caught driving  without  a license  had                                                                    
previously been convicted of a felony DUI.                                                                                      
Mr. Skidmore replied affirmatively.  He relayed that driving                                                                    
with a  license suspended/revoked/canceled had been  a crime                                                                    
in 2015.  He detailed the  crime fell under  two categories:                                                                    
1)  a license  could  be  suspended/revoked/canceled by  the                                                                    
court  because  of  a  DUI,   and  2)  a  license  could  be                                                                    
suspended/revoked/canceled because  of points, a  person had                                                                    
not   paid   for   insurance,   and   for   numerous   other                                                                    
administrative reasons.  Under SB  91, the  revocation based                                                                    
on a DUI remained a crime,  but all of the other revocations                                                                    
had  been  turned  into  violations.  The  CS  would  return                                                                    
driving  with  a  license  suspended/revoked/canceled  to  a                                                                    
crime. Under SB 91, the  mandatory minimum sentencing was 10                                                                    
days with 10 days suspended for  a first offense and 20 days                                                                    
with 10 days suspended. There  had been other provisions for                                                                    
DUIs and numerous  cascading provisions. Additionally, there                                                                    
had been  issues related to  a mandatory fine  and community                                                                    
work service.                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore explained  that  Section 73  of  the CS  would                                                                    
return all  DWLS to a  crime, but it would  limit sentencing                                                                    
to 10 days  with 10 days suspended or  the mandatory minimum                                                                    
of  10 days  for  a subsequent  offense.  He referenced  the                                                                    
question from  Vice-Chair Ortiz  and confirmed  that driving                                                                    
with  a license  suspended/revoked/canceled would  be a  new                                                                    
crime, which would require the 10 years to start over.                                                                          
3:13:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz remarked  that  a DUI  is  a very  serious                                                                    
crime, yet  he believed  there was  a recognition  that when                                                                    
possible,  individuals should  have options  to get  to work                                                                    
and be  more self-sustaining. He  thought there was  a sense                                                                    
the state needed to provide  a pathway for that possibility.                                                                    
He asked  if adopting the provision  [returning driving with                                                                    
a  license  suspended/revoked/canceled  to  a  crime]  would                                                                    
create a barrier that may go  against the intent to create a                                                                    
path forward for individuals.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  which section  Vice-Chair Ortiz  was                                                                    
referring to.                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied he was  referring to the section on                                                                    
driving with a license suspended/revoked/canceled.                                                                              
Co-Chair Wilson interjected it was Section 73.                                                                                  
Vice-Chair Ortiz  explained he was  trying to connect  it to                                                                    
the  overall goal  of enabling  an individual  to get  their                                                                    
license  restored  after  10  years  under  the  section  on                                                                    
driver's  license  after  a  felony DUI.  He  noted  he  was                                                                    
referring to  a document [provided  by DOL titled  "Draft CS                                                                    
HB 49" (copy on file)].  He clarified that returning driving                                                                    
with a  license suspended/revoked/canceled to a  crime would                                                                    
reset the clock. He asked if  the change raised the bar to a                                                                    
level that all parties believed was reasonable.                                                                                 
Mr. Skidmore  answered that  recriminalizing the  DWLS meant                                                                    
there  would be  enforcement when  individuals drove  with a                                                                    
license  suspended/revoked/canceled  because  they  did  not                                                                    
have insurance or other. He  explained the change would only                                                                    
impact the path above if a person violated the law.                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if the  governor had put  forward the                                                                    
provision    to    return    driving    with    a    license                                                                    
suspended/revoked/canceled to a crime.                                                                                          
Mr. Skidmore  replied that the  provision had been  added by                                                                    
the  Senate;  it  had  not  been  included  in  any  of  the                                                                    
governor's original bills.                                                                                                      
3:16:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  addressed Section 73 of  the bill.                                                                    
He noted that  Mr. Skidmore had put the DWLS  crime into two                                                                    
categories: 1)  resulting from  a DUI  or 2)  resulting from                                                                    
all other reasons.  Previous to SB 91, if a  person drove in                                                                    
the 90-day window  that was typical of a  first DUI offense,                                                                    
there  was   a  10-day   jailtime  imposed.  He   asked  for                                                                    
verification  the  provision was  not  restored  in the  CS;                                                                    
there was not  a suspended sentence if a person  drove a car                                                                    
while being suspended for a DUI.                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore replied that the  statute was AS 28.15.291. The                                                                    
subsection Representative  Josephson was referring  to under                                                                    
the  previous law  was  (b)(1)(d). The  penalty  had been  a                                                                    
minimum of 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.                                                                                
Representative Josephson recalled a 10-day provision.                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore answered  that the  10-day provision  had been                                                                    
for  a subsequent  offense. He  explained  the sentence  had                                                                    
been  20  days  with  10  days suspended  if  a  person  had                                                                    
previously  been convicted  of  DWLS. Whereas,  the DUI  had                                                                    
resulted in a 30-day penalty.                                                                                                   
Representative  Merrick  asked  how returning  driving  with                                                                    
license suspended/revoked/canceled to a crime  may be a tool                                                                    
for  law  enforcement   regarding  "revolving  door"  issues                                                                    
(picking up someone who may have normally been let go).                                                                         
Mr.  Skidmore  answered that  DWLS  had  been a  significant                                                                    
issue in  many places around the  state including Fairbanks,                                                                    
Mat-Su,  and the  Kenai Peninsula.  The issue  had accounted                                                                    
for approximately 17 percent of  the misdemeanor caseload in                                                                    
2015.  There were  a substantial  number of  individuals who                                                                    
came  into  contact  with law  enforcement  because  of  the                                                                    
issue.  He elaborated  that when  people  came into  contact                                                                    
with   law  enforcement   it  could   also  mean   that  law                                                                    
enforcement ended up  discovering additional information. He                                                                    
would not categorize  it as a tool, but he  agreed that when                                                                    
someone was  stopped for  DWLS it  could result  in officers                                                                    
finding  additional  information  and could  lead  to  other                                                                    
Representative Merrick  noted that  based on  Mr. Skidmore's                                                                    
prior  testimony  she had  been  under  the impression  that                                                                    
there were  certain offenses that law  enforcement could not                                                                    
necessarily book  a person for  (e.g. drug  possession), but                                                                    
the provision  under discussion would  enable an  officer to                                                                    
book  a  person  even  if   the  other  possession  was  not                                                                    
considered a crime.                                                                                                             
Mr.  Skidmore replied  that  in the  particular  case, if  a                                                                    
person      was       driving      with       a      license                                                                    
suspended/revoked/canceled and  it was  a crime,  whether or                                                                    
not  law  enforcement  would arrest  the  individual  was  a                                                                    
discretionary call  for the officer.  He clarified  that the                                                                    
officer would  have the ability  to make an  arrest, whereas                                                                    
they would  not have the ability  to arrest a person  if the                                                                    
offense was classified as a violation.                                                                                          
3:21:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  if the  number  would  decrease  if                                                                    
individuals  had the  incentive to  get their  license back.                                                                    
She  reasoned that  if  an individual  was  told they  would                                                                    
never get  their license  back, they  really had  nothing to                                                                    
lose. She  thought that  the addition  of the  provision may                                                                    
provide  incentive.   She  asked  if  the   two  items  were                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore responded  that he did not  know the statistics                                                                    
breakdown of what portion of  the 17 percent of the caseload                                                                    
(around 2,500 cases) were the  result of a permanent license                                                                    
revocation from  a felony DUI.  He confirmed there  would be                                                                    
an impact, but he did not know the percentage.                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson noted  that sometimes  it was  necessary to                                                                    
provide people  with hope to  get something back.  She noted                                                                    
there were not  other types of transportation  in some areas                                                                    
of the  state depending  on where a  person could  afford to                                                                    
live.  She   noted  that  there  were   numerous  people  in                                                                    
Fairbanks  driving with  a suspended  license. She  believed                                                                    
many of the situations were related to DUIs.                                                                                    
3:22:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp   asked  if  the   language  regarding                                                                    
licenses  added to  SB  32  in the  Senate  was original  or                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that  the language  in  the CS  was                                                                    
identical to the language in the bill in the Senate.                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore moved  to Sections 69 through  72 pertaining to                                                                    
out  of state  sex offender  registration. He  detailed that                                                                    
Alaska's  sex offender  registration laws  only required  an                                                                    
individual to register  in Alaska if they  came from another                                                                    
state that required  an individual to register  if the crime                                                                    
an individual was convicted of  in another state had similar                                                                    
elements to the crime in Alaska.  He explained it was one of                                                                    
three  ways  people   addressed  sex  offender  registration                                                                    
between different  states. The second option  was to compare                                                                    
the facts of the offense in  the other state to the elements                                                                    
of  the  offense  in  the receiving  state.  The  third  was                                                                    
proposed in  the CS and  required an individual  to register                                                                    
in  Alaska if  they  were required  to  register in  another                                                                    
state.  The state  did not  want Alaska  to be  a place  for                                                                    
people   to   go   to  avoid   sex   offender   registration                                                                    
requirements. He reminded committee  members that Alaska led                                                                    
the nation in  sex assaults. He stressed that  the state did                                                                    
not  want to  encourage anyone  to come  to Alaska  to avoid                                                                    
registration requirements in other states.                                                                                      
3:24:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  moved to earned  compliance credits  (ECC). He                                                                    
explained that ECC  provided an option to  reduce the length                                                                    
of  an  individual's  probation  or  parole.  He  noted  the                                                                    
concept  had  not existed  prior  to  SB  91. The  CS  would                                                                    
maintain ECC, but  at a reduced level. He  detailed that the                                                                    
reduction to a person's period  of probation or parole would                                                                    
be at one-third instead of the  current 30 days for 30 days.                                                                    
He explained  that the 30 days  for 30 days had  resulted in                                                                    
substantial litigation  over how  to calculate the  30 days.                                                                    
Under the CS, an individual  would start probation or parole                                                                    
and  would automatically  be told  what  their release  date                                                                    
would be. For example, if a  person was given three years of                                                                    
probation or  parole, they would  be informed they  would be                                                                    
released  after two  years; if  they committed  a violation,                                                                    
the state  would start  to claw  back some  of the  ECC. The                                                                    
change  from one-to-one  to one-to-three  put  the state  in                                                                    
compliance   with   recently   adopted  federal   ECC   law.                                                                    
Additionally, the  change would  align Alaska with  a number                                                                    
of other states. He noted  that some states used the one-to-                                                                    
one  structure,  but  more   states  used  the  one-to-three                                                                    
structure. Second,  the change  altered the language  of the                                                                    
statute  to help  eliminate some  of  the litigation  issues                                                                    
over time accounting of 30 days for 30 days.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz considered that  the change would align the                                                                    
state  with   federal  ECC  guidelines.  He   addressed  the                                                                    
complexity  in calculating  the time  under current  law. He                                                                    
asked  if  it  was  possible to  eliminate  the  calculation                                                                    
problems if  the time  was cut to  one-half instead  of one-                                                                    
third. He  wondered if there  was data driving  the proposed                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore affirmed  there  were  two different  concepts                                                                    
trying  to  be  achieved  in the  sections.  He  noted  that                                                                    
probation was  found in  Sections 76 and  77 and  parole was                                                                    
found  in  Sections 89  and  90.  He addressed  the  concept                                                                    
between  reducing   ECCs  to   one-third  or   one-half  and                                                                    
confirmed that reducing the ECC  to one-half would eliminate                                                                    
the  time accounting  problem. He  relayed  that the  choice                                                                    
between  one-third and  one-half was  a policy  decision for                                                                    
the  legislature. He  did not  know there  was data  showing                                                                    
whether one was better than the other.                                                                                          
3:29:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Merrick  asked about the recidivism  rate for                                                                    
people behind bars.                                                                                                             
Mr. Skidmore  replied that the overall  national data listed                                                                    
the recidivism  rate at  about 68  percent. The  most recent                                                                    
data he had seen for Alaska  showed a rate of 61 percent. He                                                                    
noted the category was broad and all encompassing.                                                                              
Representative  Merrick  clarified  that  she  referring  to                                                                    
people in jail.                                                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore   replied  that   he  had   misunderstood  the                                                                    
question.  The  information  he had  provided  pertained  to                                                                    
individuals who had been released  from jail. The recidivism                                                                    
rate for  people in jail  was extremely low. He  noted there                                                                    
were people who  committed crimes in jail, but  the rate was                                                                    
very low.                                                                                                                       
Representative   Merrick   asked   for   verification   that                                                                    
receiving ECCs  at a rate  of one-third instead  of one-half                                                                    
would keep the rate down.                                                                                                       
Mr.  Skidmore responded  that the  concept of  probation and                                                                    
parole pertained  to individuals  no longer in  custody. The                                                                    
one-third  versus one-half  applied  to  individuals out  of                                                                    
3:30:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson noted  that data showed that  if someone had                                                                    
issues  on probation  and  parole it  was  typically on  the                                                                    
front end  rather than  the backend. She  referred to  SB 91                                                                    
and thought  that part of idea  of the 30 credits  was about                                                                    
rewarding someone  for doing well  along the way.  She noted                                                                    
that the change in the CS  did the opposite where the amount                                                                    
[of time  served on probation and  parole] would continually                                                                    
increase if someone  committed a violation. She  asked if it                                                                    
took  someone awhile  on the  front  end to  get their  life                                                                    
together,  they may  have already  extended their  time out.                                                                    
She  reiterated  that  data showed  people  tended  to  have                                                                    
issues at the start of probation or parole.                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  confirmed the data  indicated that  the larger                                                                    
number  of violations  occurred more  frequently within  the                                                                    
first  six  months.  He  reminded  the  committee  that  the                                                                    
national  data  showed  the recidivism  rate  went  from  68                                                                    
percent to 97  to 83 as time went on.  He agreed that people                                                                    
did  continue to  commit violations,  but the  vast majority                                                                    
occurred  in the  first six  months.  He addressed  Co-Chair                                                                    
Wilson's concern  that the  proposed change  would eliminate                                                                    
the incentive.  He did not  know how the incentive  would be                                                                    
impacted.  He  explained  that  an  individual  would  still                                                                    
receive  credit. They  would begin  with one-third;  if they                                                                    
offended  in the  first several  months it  would result  in                                                                    
less credit.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson considered  that the  situation was  like a                                                                    
situation  involving  young  children. She  explained  there                                                                    
were individuals  who had never been  structured until being                                                                    
in prison. She thought  many individuals believed they would                                                                    
be fine  upon release  because they  had not  known anything                                                                    
else for some  time. She thought the purpose of  the 30 days                                                                    
was to give  incentive. She believed the change  went in the                                                                    
opposite direction  by giving an  individual a  reward ahead                                                                    
of time with the assumption  they would have no issues along                                                                    
the way.  She stated that  the data showed  issues typically                                                                    
occurred at the  beginning of a person's  time [on probation                                                                    
or parole].  She felt it seemed  like a person could  end up                                                                    
losing all of their credit because  it took them time to get                                                                    
the system.  She thought  it was the  opposite of  what they                                                                    
had  tried  to do  with  the  30  day  option. She  did  not                                                                    
understand  why there  was not  an  electronic data  program                                                                    
that could  give or not give  the 30 days. She  imagined the                                                                    
state would  end up with  the same problem if  an individual                                                                    
committed a violation and a  probation or parole officer had                                                                    
to add time back to  their probation or parole. She believed                                                                    
there would still be an accounting nightmare.                                                                                   
3:34:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore replied  that he  was  not an  expert on  time                                                                    
accounting for DOC.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson  did  not understand  the  time  accounting                                                                    
aspect.  She  liked  the reward  concept  under  the  30-day                                                                    
option  that  provided  incentive  for  an  individual.  She                                                                    
believed  there   were  many   good  parole   and  probation                                                                    
officers; however, she noted that  sometimes it was the luck                                                                    
of the draw for a person  to get someone who was much better                                                                    
and  understanding versus  someone  who was  a stickler  and                                                                    
gave individuals  violations for  any little thing.  She was                                                                    
concerned about  getting away from  a structured plan  to an                                                                    
unstructured plan. She  stated it was a policy  call for the                                                                    
legislature. She explained that she  did not like the 30-day                                                                    
credit  at  first,  but had  learned  that  for  individuals                                                                    
needing  structure,  it  seemed  to work  much  better.  She                                                                    
thought  if the  time accounting  was the  only problem,  it                                                                    
could be addressed somehow.                                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore  clarified that he  had not stated DOC  had any                                                                    
difficulty counting. He had  indicated there was substantial                                                                    
litigation  where  people  wanted  to argue  about  how  the                                                                    
system worked  and operated.  The issue  was more  about the                                                                    
litigation than time accounting.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson  pointed out that  the litigation had  to do                                                                    
with counting.                                                                                                                  
Mr. Skidmore  answered that  the litigation  had to  do with                                                                    
arguing about how the statutory  and regulatory language was                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson   preferred  to  look  at   clarifying  the                                                                    
provision versus eliminating it.                                                                                                
Representative Sullivan-Leonard  asked if DOC  would present                                                                    
to the committee in the future.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked if  Representative  Sullivan-Leonard                                                                    
was interested in data on the particular issue or overall.                                                                      
Representative Sullivan-Leonard replied  that she would like                                                                    
more overall information.                                                                                                       
3:37:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  to  hear from  DOC.  She  asked  if                                                                    
clarifying the  provision could solve  the issue  instead of                                                                    
completely changing the program.                                                                                                
Ms.  Winkelman  answered that  she  did  not know  that  the                                                                    
timeframe made a  difference. There was an ease  in the one-                                                                    
third language versus the one-half  language. She stated the                                                                    
option  fell in  line with  how DOC  treated good  time. She                                                                    
knew there  had been  countless litigation issues  in regard                                                                    
to the calculation. She highlighted  issues such as defining                                                                    
what compliance  was. She elaborated  that if  an individual                                                                    
lived in  a community where something  was unavailable, they                                                                    
were  not complying  by their  conditions of  probation. She                                                                    
questioned  whether  the  individual would  earn  compliance                                                                    
credits and  they would  be kept on  probation longer  or be                                                                    
off sooner. The idea of  frontloading the one-third off from                                                                    
the  beginning  allowed  individuals   to  know  the  system                                                                    
believed in their ability to  do well. When a violation rose                                                                    
to  the  level of  the  courts,  similar to  a  disciplinary                                                                    
process in an institution, time  would be added back on. The                                                                    
idea was to mirror the system.                                                                                                  
Ms.  Winkelman  did  not  know that  it  was  necessarily  a                                                                    
calculation issue,  as it was  about defining the  period of                                                                    
compliance.   If  someone   was   noncompliant  with   their                                                                    
probationary period at the beginning  of the month, DOC lost                                                                    
the "carrot/stick" for the rest  of the month versus dealing                                                                    
with a violation on a case by case basis.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson  thought  there  could still  be  the  same                                                                    
counting  issue [under  the proposed  provision in  the CS].                                                                    
She  pointed  out there  would  be  a process  to  determine                                                                    
whether something was  a violation and a  person could argue                                                                    
with credit  time given or taken  away. She asked if  it the                                                                    
language  could be  changed to  clarify. She  believed there                                                                    
would  be an  argument  over whether  something  was a  true                                                                    
violation.  Additionally, whether  the amount  of time  lost                                                                    
fit the violation.                                                                                                              
Ms. Winkelman  answered that if  the bill passed,  DOC would                                                                    
write policies  and regulations  to adhere  to the  new law.                                                                    
She did not yet know  what the policies or regulations would                                                                    
look like.                                                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Wilson  clarified  she   was  asking  whether  the                                                                    
current  law could  be  fixed to  make  the system  clearer.                                                                    
Alternatively,  she  wondered if  it  would  continue to  be                                                                    
litigated  from within.  She wanted  to  avoid changing  the                                                                    
policy and ending up in  a different type of litigation. She                                                                    
thought it  came down to  whether a violation  was committed                                                                    
and whether  the penalty fit  the violation (whether  on the                                                                    
front or  back end).  She did not  expect the  department to                                                                    
have an answer on hand.                                                                                                         
3:40:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore moved  to parole  eligibility  in Sections  80                                                                    
through 82. He noted  that parole eligibility and subsequent                                                                    
provisions including parole  release presumptions and parole                                                                    
application  fell  under  Sections  79  through  85.  Parole                                                                    
options included  mandatory or  good time  and discretionary                                                                    
parole.  He  explained  that discretionary  parole  was  not                                                                    
automatic and  involved applying to  the Parole Board  to be                                                                    
released.  He  explained that  in  2015,  prior to  criminal                                                                    
justice reform, discretionary parole  was limited to certain                                                                    
offenses, and  based on certain criminal  histories a person                                                                    
was  not eligible  to  apply.  Limitations included  non-sex                                                                    
Class  A felonies  including robbery,  assault  I, arson  I,                                                                    
escape 1, misconduct involving a  weapon I; Class B felonies                                                                    
if  the person  had one  or more  prior felony  convictions;                                                                    
Class C felonies if the person  had two or more prior felony                                                                    
convictions; and Class B and  C sex felonies (sexual assault                                                                    
2,  sexual  abuse  of  a  minor  2,  distribution  of  child                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  continued that in  2016 with  criminal justice                                                                    
reform,  all of  the offenders  included in  the list  above                                                                    
became eligible  to apply for  discretionary parole.  The CS                                                                    
would return  to the  system prior  to 2016  that restricted                                                                    
eligibility for discretionary parole.                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore moved to parole  release presumptions. Prior to                                                                    
SB  91,  the Parole  Board  comprised  of five  individuals,                                                                    
would exercise  its discretion  and evaluate  each applicant                                                                    
to determine  whether the  person was  a good  candidate. He                                                                    
elaborated that based on the  preponderance of the evidence,                                                                    
the board  would decide an  individual was a  good candidate                                                                    
for release.  He highlighted that  the presumption  had been                                                                    
changed under  SB 91; the  bill had instructed the  board to                                                                    
presume that everyone  was a good candidate  for release. He                                                                    
noted that individuals  no longer had to  apply for release.                                                                    
He  stressed  that individuals  were  not  released only  if                                                                    
there was  clear and convincing  evidence showing  they were                                                                    
not a good  candidate for release. He stated  the change had                                                                    
inverted the whole system on its head.                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore   shared  that  he   had  heard   Mr.  Edwards                                                                    
(executive director of the  Parole Board) testify previously                                                                    
that  the board  had a  fairly  good success  rate with  the                                                                    
individuals it chose to release  on discretionary parole. He                                                                    
underscored that the success rate  had been established pre-                                                                    
SB 91. He  did not believe all of the  data was available on                                                                    
the success rate  post-SB 91 because it took  at least three                                                                    
years to  look at  the recidivism  rate. He  reiterated that                                                                    
instead of  picking a good  candidate, the Parole  Board was                                                                    
currently  instructed   to  presume   everyone  was   to  be                                                                    
released; individuals  were not  released only if  there was                                                                    
clear  and convincing  evidence that  they were  not a  good                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  stressed  the change  was  a  very  different                                                                    
exercising of  the board's  discretion. The  presumption had                                                                    
changed, the  number of offenses eligible  for discretionary                                                                    
parole  had  expanded, no  one  was  required to  apply  for                                                                    
parole  anymore.  Under  current  law,  once  a  person  was                                                                    
eligible for  parole there was an  automatic parole hearing.                                                                    
He expressed  doubt that the  system was working as  well as                                                                    
it had in  the past. The CS would revert  all three concepts                                                                    
back to  pre-SB 91 status.  He encouraged members  to direct                                                                    
questions on how the system functioned to Mr. Edwards.                                                                          
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard  asked  to  hear  from  Mr.                                                                    
Edwards regarding the parole release process.                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Edwards  to address parole release                                                                    
presumptions  and  what tool  the  CS  would return  to  the                                                                    
Parole Board.                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Edwards  confirmed  the   accuracy  of  Mr.  Skidmore's                                                                    
description  of  the  current law.  He  reported  there  was                                                                    
currently a  presumed presumption  of release. He  stated it                                                                    
was geared towards  Class A, B, and C felonies;  if a person                                                                    
met certain criteria (i.e. compliance  with a case plan) and                                                                    
complied with all facility rules,  the board was directed to                                                                    
presume  release  unless  there  was  clear  and  convincing                                                                    
evidence  at the  time  of the  hearing  that an  individual                                                                    
posed  a risk.  The  board  felt that  the  current law  was                                                                    
overly restrictive. He noted that  a case plan was comprised                                                                    
of  things like  an individual's  compliance with  substance                                                                    
abuse treatment  or mental  health counseling.  He continued                                                                    
that if  an individual  completed substance  abuse treatment                                                                    
while  in custody,  the  board would  consider  that in  its                                                                    
Mr.  Edwards expressed  frustration on  behalf of  the board                                                                    
that the  current law took  away its discretion. One  of the                                                                    
key factors in  the board's release decision  making was the                                                                    
discretion  of   whether  to  release  or   not  release  an                                                                    
individual from discretionary parole.  He detailed that pre-                                                                    
SB  91 the  Parole Board  convened 200  to 300  hearings per                                                                    
calendar year. In 2018, the  board convened just under 1,000                                                                    
discretionary parole hearings. He  stressed there had been a                                                                    
significant  expanse   of  cases  eligible  for   parole  in                                                                    
addition  to  mandated  release   hearings.  The  number  of                                                                    
hearings  had increased  by over  180 percent,  which was  a                                                                    
significant  number   the  board  had  to   accommodate.  He                                                                    
reported that  the Parole Board concurred  with the proposed                                                                    
changes in the  law to revert closer to the  law prior to SB                                                                    
3:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked if returning  the discretion  to the                                                                    
Parole  Board  was  based  on   evidence  that  taking  away                                                                    
discretion  had  caused  problems  and/or  higher  rates  of                                                                    
recidivism. He wondered if the decision was data-based.                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson  asked Mr. Edwards to  address the question.                                                                    
She thought he had indicated  the board's extra workload was                                                                    
Mr. Edwards answered that he did  not know if there was data                                                                    
that analyzed  the process of  the presumed  release section                                                                    
in statute.                                                                                                                     
Co-Chair Wilson asked what the  Parole Board had seen change                                                                    
and how its  workload had been impacted  when its discretion                                                                    
had  been  removed. She  wondered  how  the proposed  change                                                                    
would impact the board's workload.                                                                                              
Mr. Edwards answered that the  proposed changes would reduce                                                                    
the  Parole Board's  workload. He  explained  that when  the                                                                    
board convened a hearing under  the presumed release statute                                                                    
for  an eligible  individual  who had  committed  a Class  A                                                                    
felony, the  board discussed whether  the individual  was in                                                                    
compliance  with  the  case  plan  and  facility  rules  and                                                                    
regulations. He  stated that  the discussions  should occur,                                                                    
and the board  often talked about the issues in  each of its                                                                    
hearings. The  board also talked about  the presumed release                                                                    
or  clear  and convincing  evidence  of  a risk.  The  board                                                                    
considered the risk  and whether an individual  was a repeat                                                                    
offender who  frequently returned to prison  for new crimes.                                                                    
The board  would continue  to have  the discussions  even if                                                                    
the requirement was removed, but  it would reduce the number                                                                    
of hearings the board convened annually.                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Wilson  stated  her understanding  that  currently                                                                    
people  could apply  for probation  or parole  even if  they                                                                    
were not  eligible. She  thought the  change would  mean the                                                                    
board could  decide whether a  person was eligible  prior to                                                                    
taking  any action.  She explained  that  the committee  was                                                                    
trying to  better understand how the  caseload portion would                                                                    
3:53:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore believed a question  that would be enlightening                                                                    
for the  committee was to  inquire about the  average number                                                                    
of people released on parole prior  to SB 91 versus after SB                                                                    
91 and  what type of  offenses individuals were  released on                                                                    
pre-SB  91 and  post-SB 91.  He thought  the answers  should                                                                    
give the committee a sense of  the effect of the changes. He                                                                    
did not believe answers  about recidivism would be available                                                                    
yet. He  reported that the  administration had  analyzed how                                                                    
the types  of crimes involved  and the individuals  who were                                                                    
being released had  changed and whether the  change was good                                                                    
or bad.                                                                                                                         
Representative Carpenter  asked Mr.  Edwards to  address the                                                                    
concept of  parole for  a person who  had not  yet completed                                                                    
treatment and had reached discretionary  parole. He asked if                                                                    
the Parole Board took that  into consideration and opted not                                                                    
to release  a person  if their  court ordered  treatment had                                                                    
not been completed.                                                                                                             
Mr. Edwards replied that when  an individual became eligible                                                                    
[for  discretionary parole],  the  Parole  Board convened  a                                                                    
hearing and the individual was  either on the front, middle,                                                                    
or back end of their  treatment program. He reported that in                                                                    
most cases  the board  mandated the completion  of treatment                                                                    
prior  to  release.  The  board  may  agree  to  release  an                                                                    
individual from parole  in four months' time,  but only upon                                                                    
successful  completion  of  treatment. He  shared  that  the                                                                    
scenario was independent  of a court order.  He explained it                                                                    
was  different from  scenarios where  a judge  gave a  court                                                                    
order  for   an  individual  to  complete   treatment  while                                                                    
incarcerated. He  clarified that he was  only speaking about                                                                    
general  discretionary  parole  applicants  in  midst  of  a                                                                    
treatment program. He informed  the committee that in almost                                                                    
every  scenario the  board would  mandate the  individual to                                                                    
complete treatment prior to release.                                                                                            
3:55:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson asked if  there had been situations                                                                    
in  where the  Parole Board  found  that a  person could  be                                                                    
likely to reoffend, but because  the board had not been able                                                                    
to meet  the clear  and convincing  standard it  had granted                                                                    
Mr.  Edwards answered  that he  did not  have an  example on                                                                    
hand. He would have to discuss  the issue with the board and                                                                    
look at  the difference between  51 percent and  99 percent.                                                                    
He  reported the  board  would  err on  the  side of  public                                                                    
safety and caution.                                                                                                             
Representative  Josephson thought  the Parole  Board had  to                                                                    
write an order  where it either found or did  not find clear                                                                    
and convincing  evidence. He thought  it would  be litigate-                                                                    
able otherwise.                                                                                                                 
Mr.  Edwards agreed  that the  board explained  its findings                                                                    
and what evidence was used  in writing when deciding to deny                                                                    
discretionary  parole.  The  board also  explained  what  an                                                                    
individual  needed to  do to  mitigate the  risk while  they                                                                    
were  incarcerated   pending  their  release   to  mandatory                                                                    
parole. The board  was legally required to  put the findings                                                                    
and explanations in a letter.                                                                                                   
3:57:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked if the Parole  Board decided whether                                                                    
there was clear and convincing evidence.                                                                                        
Mr. Edwards answered in the affirmative.                                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Johnston asked  if  "this" was  in the  repealer                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  asked what  Vice-Chair Johnston  was referring                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  clarified she  was asking  about parole                                                                    
release presumptions.                                                                                                           
Mr. Skidmore  responded there were sections  of the repealer                                                                    
that  implicated   the  concepts.  There  were   also  other                                                                    
sections in the bill that were implicated.                                                                                      
Vic-Chair  Johnston  referred to  section  96,  line 20  and                                                                    
thought  it appeared  to be  repealing all  of the  pretrial                                                                    
risk  assessment  tools. She  asked  if  it was  a  clerical                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  replied that line  20 of the  repealer section                                                                    
related to the Pretrial  Enforcement Division (AS 33.07). He                                                                    
explained that  the division was  folded into  [the division                                                                    
of]  probation  and  parole,  which  was  addressed  in  the                                                                    
sections. He  thought the pretrial risk  assessment tool was                                                                    
mentioned  in those  sections because  they were  originally                                                                    
the  ones  exercising  it.  He clarified  that  it  was  not                                                                    
repealed  to get  rid of  the risk  assessment tool;  it was                                                                    
repealed  because of  folding  in  the pretrial  supervision                                                                    
into probation and parole.                                                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Johnston asked  for verification  that the  bill                                                                    
did not repeal the assessment tool.                                                                                             
Mr.  Skidmore confirmed  that the  bill did  not repeal  the                                                                    
assessment  tool. The  point of  the  bill was  to keep  the                                                                    
assessment tool, but  it would not be found  in the sections                                                                    
under discussion.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson asked for verification  that DOC had already                                                                    
put pretrial,  probation, and parole  into one  section. She                                                                    
asked to hear from DOC.                                                                                                         
4:00:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Winkelman  responded  that   there  were  two  separate                                                                    
divisions.  She explained  that she  oversaw both  divisions                                                                    
that  each  had  a  deputy   director.  She  explained  that                                                                    
pretrial  service   officers  were  probation   officers  by                                                                    
statute.  She clarified  that probation  officers under  the                                                                    
Division  of  Probation and  Parole  only  had authority  in                                                                    
superior  court,  whereas,  pretrial  service  officers  had                                                                    
authority in superior and district courts.                                                                                      
Representative Josephson  observed that the  risk assessment                                                                    
was located  in AS  12.30.006 and AS  12.30.011 and  not the                                                                    
4:01:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  talked about  the use  of criminal  history in                                                                    
the grand  jury process to  establish an element of  a crime                                                                    
(Section  93).  Currently, when  a  prior  conviction for  a                                                                    
felony DUI was  an element of the  offense, prosecutors were                                                                    
allowed to  use an Alaska Public  Safety Information Network                                                                    
(APSIN)  printout showing  an individual's  criminal justice                                                                    
history. The  printout could  serve as the  basis to  move a                                                                    
case beyond grand  jury to trial. The  prosecutor would need                                                                    
to provide a certified copy  at that time. He explained that                                                                    
if a  crime presented  to a grand  jury was  something other                                                                    
than a felony  DUI, prosecutors were required  to obtain the                                                                    
certified judgement  at the time  of the grand jury.  The CS                                                                    
would adjust the  rule to allow prosecutors to  use the same                                                                    
process for any crime in which  a prior crime was an element                                                                    
of the offense.                                                                                                                 
Mr.  Skidmore  moved to  Section  94  and 95  regarding  the                                                                    
increased  use of  video  teleconferencing.  He relayed  the                                                                    
sections   included   adjustments   to  court   rules.   The                                                                    
provisions  gave courts  greater  discretion  to use  video-                                                                    
teleconferencing in  pretrial hearings. He  believed Section                                                                    
94 was  predominately a  conforming language  amendment. The                                                                    
more substantive change was in Section 95.                                                                                      
Co-Chair Wilson moved to a  provision related to involuntary                                                                    
commitments and asked  Ms. Mead to explain  what the October                                                                    
1, 1981 date  would do compared to 2011.  She clarified that                                                                    
the  provision would  require the  Court System  to transmit                                                                    
information  regarding  involuntary   commitments  that  had                                                                    
occurred since October  1, 1981 to the  Department of Public                                                                    
Ms.  Mead  was  looking  at   Section  98  of  the  CS.  She                                                                    
understood the  provision to require  the court  to transmit                                                                    
the  information  required  for   all  orders  issued  after                                                                    
January 1, 2011.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson asked  Ms. Mead to explain why  the date was                                                                    
January 1, 2011.                                                                                                                
Ms. Mead  answered that January  1, 2011 was the  date after                                                                    
which all  court records  were available  electronically and                                                                    
retrievable  electronically. Previously,  some records  were                                                                    
on CourtView  and some were  not and  prior to that  time no                                                                    
records  were on  CourtView. The  change to  2011 meant  the                                                                    
court  could comply  with the  provision  fairly easily  and                                                                    
without a fiscal impact.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson asked  what the cost would be to  go back to                                                                    
Ms.  Mead responded  that the  cost  would be  approximately                                                                    
$141,000  and  would require  the  Court  System to  hire  a                                                                    
couple of  staff to do  the work  for a year.  She explained                                                                    
that the  records from that  time were on microfiche  and it                                                                    
would require  going through  20,500 potential  records that                                                                    
may have the information.                                                                                                       
4:05:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp stated  that  the purpose  of a  grand                                                                    
jury  was to  consider  the prosecutory  evidence to  decide                                                                    
whether  there  was  enough to  forward  charges  against  a                                                                    
person. He was  concerned about the use of  a person's prior                                                                    
rap sheet. He  believed the focus should be  on the evidence                                                                    
in the particular  case. He asked when there  was an element                                                                    
of an offense that required proof of a prior conviction.                                                                        
Mr. Skidmore responded  that the types of  crimes included a                                                                    
felon in possession  of a firearm; it would  be necessary to                                                                    
demonstrate the  offender had  a prior  felony. In  cases of                                                                    
recidivist theft,  it would be  necessary to show  the prior                                                                    
crimes  of  theft to  elevate  the  crime. Additionally,  in                                                                    
cases of recidivist  assaults, it was necessary  to show the                                                                    
prior assaults  to charge the  higher level of  assaults. He                                                                    
explained that if  the CS passed, the  provision would apply                                                                    
to  drug  offenses  that  became a  Class  C  felony,  which                                                                    
required establishing past  misdemeanor convictions for drug                                                                    
possession. The  rap sheet (contained  in the  APSIN system)                                                                    
was the mechanism that prosecutors  and law enforcement used                                                                    
to determine when  someone had a prior  criminal history. He                                                                    
explained that  after grand jury,  at the time of  trial, it                                                                    
would be  necessary for the  prosecutor to have  a certified                                                                    
copy of  the judgement to  admit during trial.  He clarified                                                                    
that no one would be convicted  based on the concept, but it                                                                    
would allow the  ability to conduct a grand  jury, which was                                                                    
the early stage of a prosecution.                                                                                               
4:07:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp  understood  about  needing  to  prove                                                                    
prior  offenses to  include an  aggravator in  a charge.  He                                                                    
asked for  verification that  the APSIN  sheet would  not be                                                                    
used to show  a pattern if a crime did  not require proof of                                                                    
a prior offense.                                                                                                                
Mr. Skidmore agreed.  He stated that using  a person's prior                                                                    
history  in the  scenario provided  by Representative  Knopp                                                                    
would be  improper and would  violate the rules  of evidence                                                                    
and cause  a host of  other problems. He suggested  that the                                                                    
provision only allowed the use  of a person's prior criminal                                                                    
history when  it was an  element of the offense  that needed                                                                    
to be proven.                                                                                                                   
Representative   Josephson   addressed  the   provision   on                                                                    
involuntary  commitment.   He  noted   that  Ms.   Mead  had                                                                    
highlighted   that  the   lookback   period   in  the   memo                                                                    
summarizing the bill  [DOL document titled "Draft  CS HB 49"                                                                    
(copy on file)]  was different than the  bill. He referenced                                                                    
a bill  sponsored by Representative  Pruitt that  had passed                                                                    
the  legislature 57  to nothing  in a  previous session.  He                                                                    
stated it  was conceptually supported by  the National Rifle                                                                    
Association. He  considered whether an agency  could help to                                                                    
fund the effort.  He thought it appeared to  be a remarkable                                                                    
moment where  there was  widespread agreement  about wanting                                                                    
to know  who had  been involuntarily  committed and  not had                                                                    
the  finding removed,  to prevent  them  from doing  massive                                                                    
harm on a large scale  (as had been experienced nationally).                                                                    
He asked  whether the undertaking became  more manageable if                                                                    
resources could be found to help the Court System.                                                                              
Ms.  Mead   responded  it   was  a   policy  call   for  the                                                                    
legislature.  The  provision  was  an  attempt  to  be  more                                                                    
fiscally responsible with respect  to the bill. She informed                                                                    
the committee  that any of  the information provided  by the                                                                    
court on individuals committed in  the 1980s and 1990s would                                                                    
be disqualified from possessing  or purchasing firearms. She                                                                    
reiterated  it was  a  policy call  for  the legislature  to                                                                    
decide whether it wanted the  court to pull records from the                                                                    
1980s and provide them to DPS  and the FBI to disqualify the                                                                    
individuals from  possessing firearms.  She shared  that the                                                                    
Court  System was  able to  do that.  She believed  the 2011                                                                    
forward date was an effort  to be more fiscally responsible.                                                                    
She stated it would be up  to the legislature whether it was                                                                    
worth the investment.                                                                                                           
Ms.  Mead understood  from DPS  that  it may  have funds  to                                                                    
undertake  the effort;  however,  it was  not sufficient  to                                                                    
cancel a fiscal note because  it was not certain enough. She                                                                    
elaborated  that   regardless  of   the  funds,  it   was  a                                                                    
substantial amount of  work that the Court  System could not                                                                    
put on a  fiscal note. For example, the  court's staff would                                                                    
have to identify  all of the microfiche files  that could be                                                                    
anywhere; the work would have to  be done by court staff and                                                                    
not  someone outside  the agency.  She stated  the work  was                                                                    
substantial and it was in  the legislature's purview to make                                                                    
the determination.                                                                                                              
4:11:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  thanked Mr. Skidmore for  his presentation.                                                                    
She indicated that the next  portion of the meeting would be                                                                    
to  give agencies  an opportunity  to discuss  how the  bill                                                                    
would work.                                                                                                                     
Mr.  Skidmore noted  there was  one additional  provision on                                                                    
sexual assault  examination kits  (Section 92) that  was not                                                                    
included  on   the  DOL  document.  He   reported  that  the                                                                    
provision was also in the  House Judiciary Committee version                                                                    
of HB 49.                                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Wilson moved to the Court System.                                                                                      
4:12:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Mead  indicated that  the Court  System would  leave the                                                                    
policy  decisions  in  the  bill  to  the  legislature.  The                                                                    
primary  changes for  the Court  System  resulting from  the                                                                    
bill pertained  to bail decision  making. She  reported that                                                                    
it did  not matter  to the  court fiscally  or operationally                                                                    
whether a sentence range  was 5 to 7 years or  6 to 8 years;                                                                    
the court could apply the  ranges as written in statutes. In                                                                    
general, the  bill would not  be difficult for the  court to                                                                    
implement or comply  with. She would talk  with Mr. Skidmore                                                                    
about  the  pretrial assessment  tool  because  she was  not                                                                    
understanding that  the tool and supervision  were to remain                                                                    
in the  law despite the  repealers. She  would try to  get a                                                                    
better understanding of the proposal.                                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  had heard  that some  judges used  the risk                                                                    
assessment tool  and others did  not. She asked if  the tool                                                                    
would  still  exist  under  the   CS,  but  in  an  advisory                                                                    
capacity. She asked if Ms.  Mead was questioning whether the                                                                    
bill would completely repeal the tool.                                                                                          
Ms.  Mead  replied  that she  was  questioning  whether  the                                                                    
assessment  tool  was repealed  in  the  CS. She  noted  the                                                                    
repealer section of  the bill showed the  tool was repealed.                                                                    
She also  saw under the  bail decision making  section (page                                                                    
34,  lines 6  to 7)  that the  court may  consider the  risk                                                                    
assessment  score.  However, she  did  not  see in  the  DOC                                                                    
provisions in  Title 33 that  the department  would continue                                                                    
to  do the  risk assessments  and supervision.  She was  not                                                                    
seeing  the tool  added to  the  probation officers'  duties                                                                    
either. She thought perhaps the  issue could be addressed in                                                                    
drafting. She  noted she had only  seen the CS for  a couple                                                                    
of hours, but she was seeing a bit of a disconnect.                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson appreciated  the  comments  and would  make                                                                    
sure to get the issue on the record.                                                                                            
4:14:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  invited the Department of  Public Safety to                                                                    
address  the  committee  and  discuss  how  the  bill  would                                                                    
hopefully help the troopers.                                                                                                    
KELLY  HOWELL, SPECIAL  ASSISTANT  and LEGISLATIVE  LIAISON,                                                                    
DIVISION  OF ADMINISTRATIVE  SERVICES, DEPARTMENT  OF PUBLIC                                                                    
SAFETY,  indicated that  the  bill  would positively  impact                                                                    
public safety  and crime in  Alaska. She  communicated there                                                                    
were other  testifiers available online to  provide a boots-                                                                    
on-the-ground perspective of how  the provisions in the bill                                                                    
would impact public safety.                                                                                                     
4:16:13 PM                                                                                                                    
ANDREW GREENSTREET,  DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA  STATE TROOPERS                                                                    
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),                                                                    
expressed excitement about the bill  and what it would offer                                                                    
to law  enforcement. He reported that  the legislation would                                                                    
provide troopers with  the tools to be  effective. He firmly                                                                    
believed the  bill would restore  the trust in  the criminal                                                                    
justice system.  When troopers responded  to investigations,                                                                    
they had  opportunities to meet  with victims of  crimes and                                                                    
often  the  interaction  occurred  on the  worst  day  of  a                                                                    
person's  life.  He explained  that  victims  relied on  the                                                                    
troopers  and  what  they  had to  say  about  the  criminal                                                                    
justice system  and the investigation  itself. Under  SB 91,                                                                    
he had  seen the ability  to reassure victims in  their time                                                                    
of  need  degrade  over  time.  He  was  excited  about  the                                                                    
potential and  what it  could mean  for law  enforcement and                                                                    
the victims they interacted with.                                                                                               
Mr. Greenstreet  noted that  if the  bill passed,  the state                                                                    
may see  an increase  in crime because  more crime  would be                                                                    
reported.   He  shared   that  many   individuals  such   as                                                                    
contractors had told him they  did not call the troopers any                                                                    
longer because they  had lost faith in  the criminal justice                                                                    
system.   He    communicated   that   the    situation   was                                                                    
disheartening to the law  enforcement community. He stressed                                                                    
that officers  put on a uniform  every day to do  their part                                                                    
and seek justice. He reported  that when law enforcement was                                                                    
not   effective,  it   negatively  impacted   their  morale.                                                                    
Officers  wondered  why  they  were  putting  themselves  in                                                                    
danger  if  they  were just  arresting  the  same  criminals                                                                    
repeatedly. He reiterated his support for the bill.                                                                             
4:18:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Carpenter  had heard some  anecdotal evidence                                                                    
that  under  the current  system,  if  an officer  saw  drug                                                                    
paraphernalia  after stopping  an individual  in a  vehicle,                                                                    
they  would seize  it and  let the  person go.  He asked  if                                                                    
changes in  the bill would  result in an  immediate increase                                                                    
in  the   number  of  people  being   taken  to  corrections                                                                    
Mr. Greenstreet  answered that there  could be  an increase.                                                                    
He had spent  most of his career  in narcotics investigation                                                                    
and reported  that SB 91 had  significantly hampered efforts                                                                    
related  to  drug  possession. He  explained  that  under  a                                                                    
system   without  strong   repercussions,  when   there  was                                                                    
evidence  of  possession  or distribution,  defendants  were                                                                    
unwilling to cooperate with  any investigation. He explained                                                                    
that  while law  enforcement may  not be  interested in  the                                                                    
user, it  was certainly  interested in the  distributors. He                                                                    
elaborated that if  there was no incentive to  work with law                                                                    
enforcement, it  impeded the ability for  law enforcement to                                                                    
continue an investigation up to the supply.                                                                                     
Representative Sullivan-Leonard did not  see anything in the                                                                    
legislation regarding  vehicle theft. She asked  if the bill                                                                    
would  assist the  troopers with  the high  rate of  vehicle                                                                    
Mr. Greenstreet answered that he  had not had an opportunity                                                                    
to thoroughly  review the  bill and was  not well  versed on                                                                    
that particular portion. He deferred to Mr. Skidmore.                                                                           
4:21:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Howell  indicated  there   was  a  provision  regarding                                                                    
possession of motor vehicle theft  tools. She suggested that                                                                    
perhaps Major  Greenstreet could speak to  how the provision                                                                    
would help. She thought he could  speak to one of the crimes                                                                    
associated with vehicle  theft and how it tied  into some of                                                                    
the drug crimes.                                                                                                                
Mr.  Greenstreet  answered  that  the  additional  tools  to                                                                    
enable  law  enforcement  to work  investigations  would  be                                                                    
beneficial. He did  not recall a vehicle theft  that had not                                                                    
involved drugs.                                                                                                                 
Representative Carpenter  asked whether vehicle theft  was a                                                                    
felony or misdemeanor.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair Wilson  did not  think the  answer to  the question                                                                    
was easily answered; it depended  on the situation and value                                                                    
4:22:49 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:23:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Carpenter  asked whether vehicle theft  was a                                                                    
felony or misdemeanor.                                                                                                          
Mr.  Skidmore replied  that  a vehicle  theft  had been  and                                                                    
would continue to be a Class C felony.                                                                                          
Representative  Knopp  mentioned  special provision  for  an                                                                    
auto  theft. He  thought sentencing  had been  increased for                                                                    
Class  C felonies.  He did  not recall  whether misdemeanors                                                                    
had  been changed  to felonies  or the  felony sentence  had                                                                    
been increased  for the crime.  He noted that he  had spoken                                                                    
with Mr.  Skidmore recently  about the  impact to  car theft                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore agreed  that originally under SB 91,  a Class C                                                                    
felony for  vehicle theft had  probation only.  He explained                                                                    
it had  created substantial  problems when trying  to combat                                                                    
vehicle  theft.  He  elucidated  that  the  issue  had  been                                                                    
addressed  in SB  54 in  October  2017, where  a first  time                                                                    
offense had been  returned to a presumptive range of  0 to 2                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  believed  that  any  frustrations                                                                    
with vehicle theft after the passage  of SB 54 were a result                                                                    
of a lack  in police and resources issue.  He explained that                                                                    
the law, interest,  and desire to deal with  the problem all                                                                    
existed. He thought it was  a matter of having enough people                                                                    
to enforce the law.                                                                                                             
4:26:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore answered  there was nothing in  the current law                                                                    
that  dramatically changed  vehicle  theft.  The only  thing                                                                    
that  changed  was that  repeated  offenses  for a  Class  C                                                                    
felony  had  the lower  presumptive  ranges,  but not  by  a                                                                    
substantial amount.  The key  for Class  C felonies  was the                                                                    
first time presumptive range, which  had been restored in SB                                                                    
54. He agreed that if  a significant concern continued about                                                                    
vehicle  theft, it  was a  community by  community issue  of                                                                    
prioritizing  the  issue  and directing  resources  in  that                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  asked Major Greenstreet to  discuss vehicle                                                                    
theft and  drug use.  She noted that  he had  discussed that                                                                    
vehicle theft typically involved  drugs or other issues. She                                                                    
asked  if  individuals  were  usually  arrested  on  one  or                                                                    
multiple  charges.   She  highlighted  situations   where  a                                                                    
perpetrator broke into a person's home or vehicle.                                                                              
Mr.  Greenstreet reported  that  in  his experience  vehicle                                                                    
theft was part and parcel to the drug culture.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson  asked for  verification that  someone would                                                                    
most likely  be brought in  on multiple charges, not  just a                                                                    
vehicle charge.                                                                                                                 
Mr. Greenstreet answered affirmatively.  He confirmed that a                                                                    
standalone charge  was seldom;  there were  typically myriad                                                                    
other charges that accompanied the crime.                                                                                       
4:28:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson recalled  that  it  was tricky  to                                                                    
prosecute  vehicle theft  in  situations where  hand-me-down                                                                    
vehicles were  passed from "bad  person A to bad  person B."                                                                    
He asked if there was a remedy that would be helpful.                                                                           
Mr.  Skidmore  reported  that Representative  Josephson  had                                                                    
accurately  described  the  struggle with  the  elements  of                                                                    
vehicle  theft  and  the  way  people  attempted  to  defend                                                                    
against the cases.  He was not prepared at  present to offer                                                                    
language or  concepts to address  the issue.  He highlighted                                                                    
the  issue  mentioned by  Major  Greenstreet  that when  law                                                                    
enforcement found  people in stolen  vehicles and  there was                                                                    
evidence of drug  use, the changes in the CS  would give law                                                                    
enforcement additional tools to  more effectively respond to                                                                    
the situations.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair   Wilson  invited   Kathryn  Monfreda   to  provide                                                                    
comments to the committee.                                                                                                      
4:29:45 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHRYN MONFREDA,  DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE  SERVICES, DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via  teleconference), addressed issues DPS                                                                    
had  experienced  with  out of  state  offenders  moving  to                                                                    
Alaska. There were currently just  over 3,500 individuals on                                                                    
the  public sex  offender registry  website; about  2,600 of                                                                    
the individuals were  registered and out on  the street, and                                                                    
about 900 were either in jail  or had clearly shown they had                                                                    
left  the state.  She  detailed  that of  the  2,600 on  the                                                                    
street about 475  had committed their offenses  out of state                                                                    
and  subsequently moved  to Alaska.  Since  a supreme  court                                                                    
hearing  in  August  2018, DPS  had  notified  22  offenders                                                                    
specific to  the offense found  by the supreme court  to not                                                                    
be registerable  sex offenses - those  individuals no longer                                                                    
had to register  as long as they lived or  worked in Alaska.                                                                    
The department was taking any  other requests for reviews on                                                                    
a case by  case basis to determine if they  met the criteria                                                                    
for registration under the court ruling.                                                                                        
Ms.  Monfreda  reported  that DPS  knew  there  were  people                                                                    
moving  to  Alaska  [who  had committed  a  sex  offense  in                                                                    
another  state].   She  reported   that  Mr.   Skidmore  had                                                                    
indicated the state  received about 8 to 10  calls per month                                                                    
asking  if they  would have  to  register if  they moved  to                                                                    
Alaska. The department declined  to analyze the individuals'                                                                    
cases  on a  case  by case  basis.  The department  informed                                                                    
individuals they  needed to  register and  DPS would  make a                                                                    
determination  once  the  individual moved  to  Alaska.  The                                                                    
department hoped  it dissuaded some individuals  from moving                                                                    
to Alaska.  She reported that the  department informed about                                                                    
20 people  per year who  had moved  to Alaska that  they did                                                                    
not have to register once they got to Alaska.                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Ms. Monfreda for her comments.                                                                          
Ms. Monfreda asked if the  committee wanted to hear anything                                                                    
about mental commitments.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair Wilson affirmed.                                                                                                       
Ms. Monfreda  reported that DPS  was receiving about  165 to                                                                    
200  cases  of involuntary  commitments  per  year from  the                                                                    
court system.  She relayed  the number was  on the  low side                                                                    
compared to the rest of  the country. The federal government                                                                    
had made a  substantial amount of money  available to states                                                                    
and territories in an effort  to get people who were legally                                                                    
unauthorized to possess firearms  from being able to possess                                                                    
firearms. As  of December  2018, states  had entered  over 5                                                                    
million  mental  commitments  into the  system;  Alaska  had                                                                    
about 780  records as  of December  31 that  represented 440                                                                    
Ms. Monfreda  continued that  the number  put Alaska  low on                                                                    
the  list of  contributing to  the section  of the  National                                                                    
Instant  Criminal  Background  Check System  (NICS)  indices                                                                    
(only behind  the territories and  three other  states). She                                                                    
reported that getting the commitments  back to 2011 would be                                                                    
very beneficial.  She pointed out that  the individuals were                                                                    
currently barred  from legally possessing  firearms; passing                                                                    
the  law would  not make  it  legal for  the individuals  to                                                                    
possess firearms,  but it would  get the individuals  in the                                                                    
system, which  would prevent them  from buying a  firearm if                                                                    
they attempted to do so.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  if the  federal government  had gone                                                                    
back as far.                                                                                                                    
Ms. Monfreda answered in the  affirmative. She reported that                                                                    
most states were going back as far as possible.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if the federal  government kept track                                                                    
of the information as well.                                                                                                     
Ms.  Monfreda replied  that records  entered  into the  NICS                                                                    
indices were  entered by  the states;  the FBI  retained the                                                                    
information as long as the states retained the information.                                                                     
4:34:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston asked  if Ms. Monfreda was  aware of any                                                                    
federal funding the state may  not be taking advantage of to                                                                    
go as far back as possible.                                                                                                     
Ms. Monfreda  reported a $25  million grant  opportunity had                                                                    
become available  about two weeks  earlier to  enable states                                                                    
to get the  records into the system. She  detailed there was                                                                    
a  special emphasis  on mental  health records,  and it  was                                                                    
available for all states to pursue.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson requested the information on the grant.                                                                         
Vice-Chair Johnston  remarked on the importance  of ensuring                                                                    
the state's data was robust.                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson remarked it was another policy call.                                                                            
4:35:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson asked  to hear  from the  Office of  Public                                                                    
Advocacy (OPA).                                                                                                                 
JAMES   STINSON,  DIRECTOR,   OFFICE  OF   PUBLIC  ADVOCACY,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF  ADMINISTRATION (via  teleconference), thought                                                                    
the bill  did a pretty  good job trying to  balance numerous                                                                    
interests.  He  characterized  criminal justice  as  an  art                                                                    
versus a science.  He focused his comments on  issues he saw                                                                    
with  recriminalizing driving  with license  being suspended                                                                    
or revoked (DWLR).  He reported that one of  the things that                                                                    
could happen  was that individuals  could get sucked  into a                                                                    
DWLR black hole. He provided  a scenario where a person lost                                                                    
their license  for failing  to pay  child support.  He noted                                                                    
that Alaska was  a very difficult state to not  drive in and                                                                    
under the scenario the individual continued to drive.                                                                           
Mr. Stinson  detailed that  when a  person received  a DWLR,                                                                    
there was  a mandatory 90-day license  revocation even under                                                                    
a first  offense. He explained  that the situation  could go                                                                    
on  and on  if  they continued  to drive  to  work and  were                                                                    
occasionally  stopped.  He  elaborated that  the  individual                                                                    
began racking up  jailtime. In his previous  experience as a                                                                    
municipal prosecutor,  it had been  an odd feeling  going to                                                                    
some of  the change of  plea hearings and seeing  someone on                                                                    
their  fifth or  sixth DWLR  get  sentenced to  six or  more                                                                    
months  in   jail.  Comparatively,  a  person   on  a  third                                                                    
misdemeanor assault (even a  domestic violence assault), was                                                                    
potentially receiving less jailtime.                                                                                            
Mr. Stinson  stated the  issue was  a tricky  and political;                                                                    
people  did not  like  the  idea of  people  driving with  a                                                                    
license  revoked. He  understood  the issue  and noted  that                                                                    
people  did not  like being  hit by  someone with  a revoked                                                                    
license. However, he believed  it was important to recognize                                                                    
that  someone who  did  not  have a  license,  could be  not                                                                    
violating traffic laws, could get  pulled over, could get so                                                                    
behind the  curve they had  stacked up  license revocations,                                                                    
and  they  were trying  to  make  ends meet.  He  questioned                                                                    
whether  it was  conduct that  should be  criminalized as  a                                                                    
Class A  misdemeanor with a  sentence of  up to one  year in                                                                    
jail, or criminalized with a  cap, or singled out in certain                                                                    
instances.  He  noted  the  issue  could  also  happen  when                                                                    
someone  got  their  first  DUI  and  could  not  afford  an                                                                    
ignition interlock  device or SR-22 insurance.  He noted the                                                                    
person may  wait until their mandatory  OUI [operating under                                                                    
the influence]  revocation was  over; once  the individual's                                                                    
OUI  revocation  was  over,  they  could  drive  and  get  a                                                                    
standard driving with license revoked.                                                                                          
Mr.  Stinson  did  not  have  a  perfect  solution,  but  he                                                                    
believed  it  was important  to  question,  in a  time  with                                                                    
limited  financial   resources,  if  the  state   wanted  to                                                                    
potentially  send  individuals to  jail  for  six months  or                                                                    
longer as  they stacked  up driving  offenses. He  stated if                                                                    
the  answer  was yes,  that  was  fine,  but he  wanted  the                                                                    
legislature to be  cognizant of the issue  that could create                                                                    
a disproportioned affect  in a person's life  who was really                                                                    
doing nothing else but driving.                                                                                                 
Representative LeBon  asked for  verification that  a person                                                                    
who  had been  stopped up  to five  times without  a license                                                                    
would not have auto and liability insurance.                                                                                    
Mr. Stinson  replied that  it was  not necessarily  true. He                                                                    
detailed  that  a  person  could  own  a  vehicle  and  have                                                                    
insurance without having a valid  driver's license. He added                                                                    
it was  possible a  person could  be driving  someone else's                                                                    
car  that  had  insurance  coverage. There  was  a  separate                                                                    
offense of  driving without insurance, which  he believed it                                                                    
was a  violation that had  been criminal  prior to SB  91 or                                                                    
another time. He remarked that  someone with a license could                                                                    
be driving without insurance and  vice versa. He stated that                                                                    
the  scenario  presented  by  Representative  LeBon  may  be                                                                    
common, but there  were plenty of drivers  with licenses who                                                                    
also drove without insurance.                                                                                                   
4:40:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   LeBon   provided   a  scenario   where   an                                                                    
individual with an insured vehicle  knowingly loaned it to a                                                                    
person  with a  revoked  license. He  asked  if the  insured                                                                    
individual's insurance company  would consider the situation                                                                    
Mr. Stinson  answered that he could  not necessarily provide                                                                    
an answer.  He relayed  that run of  the mill  taxpayers had                                                                    
uninsured  coverage that  covered getting  into an  accident                                                                    
with an  uninsured driver  regardless of  the status  of the                                                                    
person's  license. He  noted there  were  policies that  had                                                                    
broader coverage  than others,  but he did  not know  how an                                                                    
insurance company would react to the situation.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  stated she was fairly  certain an insurance                                                                    
company would not like the situation.                                                                                           
Mr. Stinson agreed.                                                                                                             
Representative Josephson  thought Mr. Stinson made  a pretty                                                                    
good argument  on DWLR. He  was more troubled  about someone                                                                    
with a  DUI driving during  the 90-day window  of suspension                                                                    
rather than someone who exceeded  their points. He could see                                                                    
making the latter an infraction  or violation and the former                                                                    
something  more  stringent.  He   asked  for  Mr.  Stinson's                                                                    
Mr.   Stinson   answered   that  the   issue   outlined   by                                                                    
Representative Josephson  became muddled. He  suggested that                                                                    
usually when  someone was charged  with a DUI  their license                                                                    
was  administratively  revoked  by  DMV within  a  week.  He                                                                    
elaborated  that  usually by  the  time  a person  had  been                                                                    
sentenced for  a DUI, their mandatory  revocation period may                                                                    
have wound  down significantly.  After the  90 days  was up,                                                                    
the individual was no longer  on active DUI revocation under                                                                    
a first offense. He noted the  length of time was longer for                                                                    
subsequent offenses.  Once a  person was  out of  the 90-day                                                                    
window, if they  were stopped, they would be  charged with a                                                                    
regular DWLR.                                                                                                                   
Mr. Stinson reported that the  situation became more muddled                                                                    
because a  person with a  first DUI offense was  required to                                                                    
get an ignition interlock  device installed on their vehicle                                                                    
for the  first six months.  He explained that if  the person                                                                    
did not  have the  device installed  and waited  until their                                                                    
90-day  license revocation  was over,  the individual  would                                                                    
receive a standard DWLR  (requiring mandatory community work                                                                    
service but no jailtime). He  furthered that if a person had                                                                    
an  ignition interlock  in their  vehicle and  then drove  a                                                                    
vehicle  without  the device  (e.g.  a  friend's car),  they                                                                    
would  be exposed  to the  same  mandatory minimum  jailtime                                                                    
associated with  an active OUI revocation.  He reported that                                                                    
the way  the statute worked could  be confusing. Ultimately,                                                                    
an individual  could rack up  DWLRs under the  two different                                                                    
scenarios  and it  became a  question  of whether  or not  a                                                                    
person would get the mandatory jailtime.                                                                                        
4:44:03 PM                                                                                                                    
BETH  GOLDSTEIN,  ACTING   PUBLIC  DEFENDER,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION  (via  teleconference),   drew  attention  to                                                                    
Sections  4 and  5 and  reported  the agency  had a  concern                                                                    
regarding the  removal of the  defense of marriage  act. She                                                                    
stated  that  the  bill  did   not  limit  the  charging  or                                                                    
conviction  in  the  way  described  by  Mr.  Skidmore  with                                                                    
respect  to  the  person  not  being able  to  say  no.  She                                                                    
explained that a  person with dementia could  speak and make                                                                    
their wishes  known. She noted she  had previously testified                                                                    
on the subject to the Senate.                                                                                                   
Ms. Goldstein  explained that with respect  to dementia, the                                                                    
concern  was a  situation  where a  spouse had  guardianship                                                                    
over  another spouse.  She explained  that dementia  was not                                                                    
static;  there  could be  clarity  for  days or  weeks.  She                                                                    
continued  that spouses  may decide  within  the context  of                                                                    
their relationship  and the spouse  may have the  ability to                                                                    
give  consent  during that  time.  However,  days later  the                                                                    
individual  may not  remember. She  believed  the law  would                                                                    
result  in substantial  litigation around  whether or  not a                                                                    
person  was  able  to  give consent  even  though  they  had                                                                    
something like  dementia. Additionally, the  wording removed                                                                    
in  the  HB  145  version   had  a  section  on  the  mental                                                                    
incapability of the offender. She  noted it was not included                                                                    
in the language in the CS for HB 49.                                                                                            
Ms.  Goldstein   explained  that  OPA  had   wards  who  had                                                                    
guardianships  and  many  times   those  wards  married  one                                                                    
another.  The court  had determined  they did  not have  the                                                                    
capacity  to  handle  aspects  of their  lives  and  need  a                                                                    
guardian  (capacity  at  times   could  equate  to  mentally                                                                    
incapable); the question became whether  a person with an IQ                                                                    
of 59 could  understand and consent even though  they may be                                                                    
mentally  incapable. She  questioned  where the  legislation                                                                    
left the  situations where two  wards were married,  both of                                                                    
which  who may  be  mentally incapable  under  the law.  She                                                                    
explained that one  or both could potentially  be charged at                                                                    
some  point, depending  on  the  factual circumstances.  The                                                                    
agency had concerns  with the specific sections  of the bill                                                                    
and with  the elimination  of the  marriage defense  for the                                                                    
particular situations.                                                                                                          
4:47:22 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Goldstein  moved  on  to  discuss  Section  44  and  45                                                                    
pertaining to  the recidivist [indecipherable]  statute. The                                                                    
agency  was concerned  that the  statute  still appeared  to                                                                    
capture   misdemeanor  marijuana   prior  convictions.   She                                                                    
pointed out that  the state had decriminalized  much of that                                                                    
possession,  but the  bill would  still capture  individuals                                                                    
prior  to  the  decriminalization   if  they  possessed  the                                                                    
substances under the section.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson  asked for clarification. She  asked whether                                                                    
capturing was good or bad.                                                                                                      
Ms.  Goldstein   explained  that   the  agency   viewed  the                                                                    
situation  as  negative.  She  explained  that  currently  a                                                                    
person  would  not  necessarily be  charged  with  the  same                                                                    
amount of  marijuana or  obtaining that  marijuana, whereas,                                                                    
they had  been charged  with simple possession  of marijuana                                                                    
eight to  ten years  earlier, which had  been decriminalized                                                                    
later  on. She  stated the  bill would  mean the  individual                                                                    
would  be  charged  with  a  felony  based  on  those  prior                                                                    
Representative Josephson  asked which page and  line she was                                                                    
referring to.                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson pointed to pages  25 and 26, Sections 44 and                                                                    
45 of the legislation.                                                                                                          
Representative Josephson asked what needed to be changed.                                                                       
Ms. Goldstein  supported the  lookback period,  but believed                                                                    
the bill  needed to exclude the  basic misdemeanor marijuana                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  thought the language had  been included                                                                    
in HB  145. She asked if  the language in HB  145 would take                                                                    
care of the issue.                                                                                                              
Ms. Goldstein  reported that she  had the same  concern with                                                                    
HB 145.  She had brought the  issue to the attention  of the                                                                    
House  Judiciary Committee,  but the  language had  not been                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz asked  Ms. Goldstein  if she  had concerns                                                                    
with Section 55,  page 34 that would repeal the  caps on the                                                                    
sanctions for  technical violations (currently 3,  5, and 10                                                                    
Ms. Goldstein  responded that her  concern with  the section                                                                    
was  from  a  fiscal  perspective.  She  reported  that  the                                                                    
section would result in  more contested revocation hearings.                                                                    
She had spoken  to attorneys and the  Public Defender Agency                                                                    
and reported that currently when  an individual violated and                                                                    
knew  precisely how  much time  they would  get, many  times                                                                    
they made the  decision to do the time and  not contest. She                                                                    
elaborated that  an individual knew  they would come  in and                                                                    
get three  days, they  served the time,  and no  hearing was                                                                    
necessary. She  explained that without  a cap  an individual                                                                    
would not know what they  may be sentenced to, meaning there                                                                    
would  be a  higher likelihood  an individual  would contest                                                                    
the   revocations,   which   would   result   in   increased                                                                    
4:51:04 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
5:02:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson  indicated  the  committee  would  continue                                                                    
hearing input from the Department of Corrections.                                                                               
Ms. Winkelman  thanked the committee for  the opportunity to                                                                    
provide  commentary  on  the bill.  She  reported  that  DOC                                                                    
believed the bill would give  it the tools to enhance public                                                                    
safety.  From a  community  supervision perspective,  longer                                                                    
periods  on supervision  would  increase  public safety  and                                                                    
help  guide offenders  on their  way to  rehabilitation. She                                                                    
elaborated  that supervision  was  a  cost-effective way  to                                                                    
keep offenders away from drugs  and alcohol and victims. She                                                                    
referenced earlier testimony by Mr.  Skidmore that SB 91 had                                                                    
changed the  criminal justice system  across the board  - it                                                                    
had   reclassified   crimes,  reduced   sentences,   reduced                                                                    
probationary periods,  added earned compliance  credits, and                                                                    
mandatory early termination.                                                                                                    
Ms. Winkelman  explained the changes had  reduced periods of                                                                    
incarceration  and  the bill  had  taken  a "cookie  cutter"                                                                    
approach  to human  beings in  the criminal  justice system.                                                                    
She highlighted  the complexity of the  system and offenders                                                                    
should  be  dealt  with  on   a  case  by  case  basis.  She                                                                    
communicated the  department's support of the  provisions in                                                                    
HB  49 pertaining  to  rehabilitation  and increased  public                                                                    
safety. Although  earned compliance credits were  altered in                                                                    
the  bill, the  credits would  be left  in place,  which the                                                                    
department felt  was beneficial.  She noted that  the system                                                                    
would continue to have SEJs  [suspended entry of judgements]                                                                    
as well as early termination and pretrial supervision.                                                                          
Ms. Winkelman  reported that  individuals would  continue to                                                                    
be released  into the community  in pretrial status  and the                                                                    
bill would give  courts the option for  pretrial officers to                                                                    
provide supervision. She addressed  the provision related to                                                                    
discretionary   parole   eligibility.  She   reported   that                                                                    
limiting  discretionary  parole   eligibility  would  impact                                                                    
public safety.  She referenced  Mr. Edwards  testimony about                                                                    
the  increase in  hearings due  to the  expanded eligibility                                                                    
(from  around 200  up  to 1,000).  She  explained that  when                                                                    
individuals were released on  discretionary parole they went                                                                    
to   supervision.   She   detailed   that   in   the   past,                                                                    
discretionary   parole   had   been   reserved   for   elite                                                                    
individuals  who had  completed significant  programming and                                                                    
were at  the tail  end [of their  time]. She  furthered that                                                                    
the  discretionary  parole  system  had  become  a  reckless                                                                    
disregard where  DOC had  found many  people were  not ready                                                                    
for  parole  and  much  of   its  absconder  population  had                                                                    
Ms.  Winkelman had  heard feedback  from staff  that it  was                                                                    
almost  impossible,  due  to  the  volume  of  discretionary                                                                    
parole, to  assess risk on  the applicants. The  reports had                                                                    
become  streamlined  and  simplified  instead  of  a  robust                                                                    
application process. The department  believed the bill was a                                                                    
movement  towards  a  balanced  system that  relied  on  the                                                                    
officers to  inform the courts  and parole board  of conduct                                                                    
of the  offenders and  would return  the discretion  back to                                                                    
the court  to impose what  was relative to the  violation or                                                                    
the offender.  She noted that  the bill would  still provide                                                                    
the opportunity  for rehabilitation for those  who wanted to                                                                    
engage  in the  process  through  early compliance  credits,                                                                    
early  termination  (that  would no  longer  be  mandatory),                                                                    
SEJs, and pretrial supervision.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson  indicated  the  committee  would  move  to                                                                    
fiscal notes. She thanked Ms. Winkelman for her testimony.                                                                      
5:07:15 PM                                                                                                                    
SYLVAN  ROBB, ADMINISTRATIVE  SERVICES DIRECTOR,  DEPARTMENT                                                                    
OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF  MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, introduced                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson reported  that  the  committee would  begin                                                                    
with  OMB  Component  Number   698  for  administration  and                                                                    
support, information technology under DOC.                                                                                      
Ms.  Robb pointed  out that  the DOC  fiscal notes  followed                                                                    
fiscal notes from the Department  of Administration (DOA) in                                                                    
the  packets. She  believed note  under  discussion was  the                                                                    
third in the packet.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that the  fiscal notes were marked                                                                    
draft. She explained that the  notes only went through FY 20                                                                    
because it  was almost  impossible to understand  the impact                                                                    
after that time.  She reported that the  governor's plan was                                                                    
to talk  about more treatment  next session. She  hoped that                                                                    
if treatment options became more  successful, there would be                                                                    
less recidivism and safer places.  The fiscal notes would be                                                                    
considered one-time  increments, which meant  the discussion                                                                    
would  occur next  session  about  whatever bill  ultimately                                                                    
5:08:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  if  the  fiscal  notes  should  be                                                                    
considered implementation costs or ongoing costs.                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson replied that most  of the costs were related                                                                    
to  implementation. She  would not  characterize all  of the                                                                    
costs as ongoing because the bill  was the first step in the                                                                    
project. She  believed the committee  had done  an excellent                                                                    
job  talking about  the other  parts  and pieces  associated                                                                    
with  the  topic.  The  bill was  about  making  sure  crime                                                                    
stopped, aligning punishment to  fit the crime, and reducing                                                                    
recidivism via  providing options  to enable  individuals to                                                                    
successfully get  their lives back  together. She  noted the                                                                    
bill was much different  than others because typically costs                                                                    
were ongoing, and programs did  not change. She believed the                                                                    
bill was  just the  beginning of  changes that  would impact                                                                    
public safety. She  added that the bill was  the first step,                                                                    
but treatment was just as  important and was not included in                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
Ms. Robb  began with fiscal  note with OMB  Component Number                                                                    
698. She  explained that the  note included money  to enable                                                                    
DOC to  hire a contractor  to make the necessary  changes to                                                                    
the  departments database  the  Alaska Corrections  Offender                                                                    
Management  System  (ACOMS).  The   note  pertained  to  the                                                                    
proposed  changes  to  the  earned  compliance  credit.  She                                                                    
detailed that  the programmers who worked  on and maintained                                                                    
the system  did not  have the capacity  to make  the change,                                                                    
especially  under  the  timeframe  required  by  the  bill's                                                                    
effective date.                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Wilson reported  the  committee  would review  the                                                                    
fiscal note labeled OMB Component Number 2952.                                                                                  
Ms. Robb  spoke to  the fiscal note  and explained  that DOC                                                                    
calculated cost with its cost  of care (calculated annually)                                                                    
of $168.74 per day. She detailed  that $36.86 of the per day                                                                    
cost was  directed at healthcare. The  fiscal note reflected                                                                    
the $36.86 per day for  inmates who would exceed the current                                                                    
capacity of the system projected  by the department based on                                                                    
changes in the bill. The was $2.7 million.                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked  if 204  inmates  would  exceed  the                                                                    
correctional institutions' current capacity.                                                                                    
Ms.  Robb replied  in the  affirmative. She  elaborated that                                                                    
the  department's  projection  was  for  an  additional  554                                                                    
inmates based on the proposed legislation.                                                                                      
Co-Chair   Wilson  wondered   where  the   554  number   was                                                                    
reflected. She pointed out that  the fiscal note only showed                                                                    
a projection of 204.                                                                                                            
Ms. Robb  answered that  DOC currently  had capacity  for an                                                                    
additional 350 inmates, which left 204 remaining.                                                                               
Representative LeBon  asked if the fiscal  note assumed that                                                                    
the Palmer facility would reopen.                                                                                               
Ms.  Robb  responded  that  the  note  did  not  assume  the                                                                    
reopening  of the  Palmer facility.  The fiscal  note was  a                                                                    
projection based  on historical data. She  explained that if                                                                    
the bill passed  and the projected increase  in inmates came                                                                    
to fruition, it would  not happen simultaneously. She stated                                                                    
that  if facilities  moved  toward  their current  capacity,                                                                    
there would be a reassessment at that time.                                                                                     
Representative  LeBon  asked  if  there was  a  fiscal  note                                                                    
reflecting the costs of reopening the Palmer facility.                                                                          
Ms. Robb responded in the negative.                                                                                             
Representative  Knopp  understood  things  were  a  work  in                                                                    
progress. He  noted that the  original HB 49 had  included a                                                                    
fiscal note of $42 million.  He had not reviewed that fiscal                                                                    
note, but he  assumed it had reflected  reopening the Palmer                                                                    
Correctional  Center.  He  stated there  had  been  numerous                                                                    
versions  of the  bill  and  he recalled  a  later total  of                                                                    
approximately  $22   million.  He   observed  that   the  CS                                                                    
incorporated  numerous aspects  of  all of  the other  crime                                                                    
bills. He had heard prior  presentations that in a couple of                                                                    
years the state would  incarcerate 500 additional people. He                                                                    
was  surprised  the  fiscal  notes   did  not  reflect  that                                                                    
information. He asked for comment from DOC.                                                                                     
5:14:56 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
5:17:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson invited  Kelly Goode with DOC  to the table.                                                                    
She believed  there was some misunderstanding  about some of                                                                    
the  numbers. She  noted there  were  other avenues  besides                                                                    
[reopening] the  Palmer facility  or sending inmates  out of                                                                    
KELLY  GOODE,  DEPUTY   COMMISSIONER  DEPT  OF  CORRECTIONS,                                                                    
communicated  that she  would respond  to the  question from                                                                    
Representative Knopp  and would also provide  some overview.                                                                    
She explained that the fiscal  note looked different because                                                                    
the  department  was  anticipating  a little  over  500  new                                                                    
inmates  over   the  course  of   a  year.   The  department                                                                    
anticipated  it would  have a  little over  350 beds  in its                                                                    
current  facilities. She  noted  the  remaining 200  inmates                                                                    
would not be  incarcerated all at one time.  She added there                                                                    
was legislative  intent asking DOC  to place  individuals as                                                                    
best  as it  could in  community residential  centers (CRCs)                                                                    
and  on  electronic  monitoring   (EM);  that  number  being                                                                    
requested was  currently over  200. The  department believed                                                                    
that DOC would be able to  meet the numbers projected in the                                                                    
fiscal note over the course of a year.                                                                                          
5:19:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Knopp remarked that  the first fiscal note he                                                                    
had seen  for the original  HB 49 had  a fiscal note  of $42                                                                    
million.  He asked  if that  number  included reopening  the                                                                    
Palmer Correctional Center.                                                                                                     
Ms.  Goode   responded  in  the  negative.   She  noted  the                                                                    
complexity  of the  situation and  explained that  the issue                                                                    
was based on  the time the fiscal notes had  been created in                                                                    
the system,  when a  budget had been  in progress  and other                                                                    
things had  been occurring.  She detailed  that the  cost of                                                                    
care  projected in  the $42  million was  the full  $168 per                                                                    
inmate  because DOC  initially believed  it  would be  above                                                                    
capacity   for  any   additional   inmates  projected.   She                                                                    
elaborated that  the department had determined  its capacity                                                                    
would only be  exceeded by 200 [if there was  an increase of                                                                    
500 inmates].  The 350  inmates had  been calculated  on the                                                                    
marginal  rate; the  full  $168.74 was  applied  to the  200                                                                    
inmates  over  capacity.  The  change   had  resulted  in  a                                                                    
significant difference in the fiscal note.                                                                                      
5:20:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Knopp  recalled that the previous  week there                                                                    
had  only been  170 empty  [correctional facility]  beds. He                                                                    
asked  if  the   number  had  changed  to   350  open  beds.                                                                    
Alternatively, he wondered  if 350 was a  projection for the                                                                    
Ms.  Goode   responded  that  there  had   been  significant                                                                    
discussion about  projecting. She stated  that unfortunately                                                                    
DOC did  not have a crystal  ball and corrections was  a bit                                                                    
of  a moving  target. The  department wanted  to ensure  the                                                                    
committee was  confident in the  numbers DOC put  forward in                                                                    
its  fiscal   notes.  She   explained  the   department  had                                                                    
previously been  using an  average over  a quarter,  but the                                                                    
average in the  fiscal note used the calendar  year 2018 for                                                                    
clarity.  The institution  population  was  an average  from                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson remarked  on  the  department's ability  to                                                                    
utilize  CRCs  and  EM,  which  had  been  included  in  the                                                                    
operating budget based on  current regulation. She clarified                                                                    
it was  not an  over-crowding issue.  She reported  that DOC                                                                    
had  a  process to  identify  inmates  who  did or  did  not                                                                    
qualify [for CRCs or EM].  She reported that DOC believed as                                                                    
new  inmates came  in and  out  of its  facilities that  the                                                                    
department would be able to better utilize the options.                                                                         
5:22:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  asked  what  DOC's  total  fiscal                                                                    
notes had been under the  governor's crime package (SB 32 to                                                                    
36 or HB 49 to 53).                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson interjected  that the  committee would  not                                                                    
revisit old fiscal notes. She  pointed out that the past DOC                                                                    
fiscal notes had used the  $168 rate instead of the marginal                                                                    
rate.  She   stated  that  the  current   notes  before  the                                                                    
committee were accurate  for the CS. She  stated that trying                                                                    
to  make  a   comparison  to  other  bills   that  had  many                                                                    
differences from the  CS would be unfair  to the department.                                                                    
She understood  moving between the different  bills had been                                                                    
confusing. She  assured the committee that  the numbers were                                                                    
as  accurate   as  possible.  She  noted   that  the  prison                                                                    
population was  changing daily. Additionally, DOC  was doing                                                                    
new contracts for  CRCs, which would make  a difference. She                                                                    
hoped the state  would be able to get some  of the treatment                                                                    
going before waiting until policy change next year.                                                                             
Vice-Chair Johnston  pointed out that the  fiscal notes were                                                                    
marked "draft."  She assumed the  information was a  work in                                                                    
progress because the CS had  just been released the previous                                                                    
Ms.  Goode agreed.  She explained  that DOC  only had  a set                                                                    
number  of hours  to look  at  the provisions  and pull  the                                                                    
fiscal  notes  together.  She remarked  that  Ms.  Robb  had                                                                    
worked numerous  hours on the  notes. The  department wanted                                                                    
to ensure that it caught any potential errors.                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson emphasized  that fiscal  notes were  always                                                                    
drafts  "when  we  have  a  bill that  is  like  this."  She                                                                    
reminded the committee  that the bill stiffened  much of the                                                                    
law,   but   individuals   currently   being   charged   and                                                                    
incarcerated  would fall  underneath  the  old program.  She                                                                    
explained it  would take  awhile before  some of  the longer                                                                    
[prison] stays in  the new program, which  made it difficult                                                                    
to  determine [what  the fiscal  cost would  be]. She  noted                                                                    
that  the  new  commissioner and  deputy  commissioner  were                                                                    
bringing their  own touch to  DOC and she looked  forward to                                                                    
hearing  what  the department  was  able  to do  during  the                                                                    
5:24:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson moved to the  fiscal note with OMB Component                                                                    
Number   1381   for   population   management,   institution                                                                    
director's office, totaling $15.580 million for FY 20.                                                                          
Ms. Robb relayed  that the fiscal note included  the bulk of                                                                    
the costs related to DOC. The  note was based on data pulled                                                                    
from  ACOMS. She  remarked  that the  bill  would make  many                                                                    
changes  that   would  impact  the   corrections  population                                                                    
including increased  sentences for  Class A and  B felonies.                                                                    
She  reported there  were 5,000  individuals charged  with a                                                                    
Class A  misdemeanor annually. Additionally, the  bill would                                                                    
increase sentencing for Class  B misdemeanors, remove credit                                                                    
for time  spent on EM  during pretrial status.  She reported                                                                    
that the eligibility changes  for discretionary parole would                                                                    
have a  large impact on  the department, as people  would be                                                                    
required to stay  longer before they had  the opportunity to                                                                    
be on  discretionary parole.  She relayed  that some  of the                                                                    
changes had a  very small impact in terms  of the additional                                                                    
time individuals  would be with corrections;  in some cases,                                                                    
it  would only  be a  couple  of extra  days. However,  when                                                                    
applying that  to thousands  of people it  would add  up. In                                                                    
other  cases, such  as discretionary  parole, the  impact on                                                                    
jailtime would be significant.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson  appreciated that pages  2 through 4  of the                                                                    
fiscal note  corresponded to bill sections.  She stated that                                                                    
determining whether the  costs were a good way  to spend the                                                                    
state's money  was a  policy call  for the  legislature. She                                                                    
moved to  fiscal note  OMB Component Number  of 695  for the                                                                    
Parole Board.                                                                                                                   
Ms. Robb addressed  the zero fiscal note  and explained that                                                                    
the  Parole Board  anticipated the  ability to  move forward                                                                    
with  existing resources  as it  related to  changes in  the                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  considered that  the bill could  lessen the                                                                    
caseload  of the  Parole Board.  She asked  for verification                                                                    
the agency  was not paid  more when its caseload  was heavy.                                                                    
She  thought  they  received a  set  fee  and  characterized                                                                    
members  as  somewhat  voluntary.  She thought  it  was  the                                                                    
reason there were not any  projected savings on the note and                                                                    
believed savings would  really be in the form  of timing for                                                                    
the Parole Board.                                                                                                               
Ms. Robb agreed.  She explained that the  board had absorbed                                                                    
the extreme  increase Mr. Edwards  had spoken  about earlier                                                                    
in  the meeting.  She noted  that  the increase  had been  a                                                                    
strain on the  system; the changes proposed in  the CS would                                                                    
return the workload to a more reasonable level.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson recommended committee  members talk to board                                                                    
members. She  remarked the board  put a significant  time in                                                                    
for the  state and she  believed it  was one of  the hardest                                                                    
working groups.                                                                                                                 
5:28:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  moved to fiscal  note OMB  Component Number                                                                    
2826,  for population  management,  statewide probation  and                                                                    
parole, totaling $546,000.                                                                                                      
Ms.  Robb relayed  there had  been  a recent  change in  law                                                                    
related to  SB 91  that limited  the caseload  for probation                                                                    
officers. She  believed the effective date  had been January                                                                    
1,  2019. She  explained that  the changes  in the  CS would                                                                    
increase the probation caseloads  above the statutory limit.                                                                    
To account for the increase,  the bill would add a probation                                                                    
officer  in   Anchorage,  Juneau,  Ketchikan,   Kodiak,  and                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  expressed confusion about the  fiscal note.                                                                    
She stated the note  pertained to earned compliance credits;                                                                    
individuals currently received 30 days  for every 30 days [a                                                                    
person  went without  a violation].  A change  under the  CS                                                                    
would mean  individuals received  a reduction  [to probation                                                                    
or  parole] ahead  of  time instead.  She  wondered why  the                                                                    
change  would  result  in  more  individuals  receiving  the                                                                    
credit. She thought the fiscal note should be zero.                                                                             
Ms. Goode commented  that she would like to  review the note                                                                    
and review it with the committee at a later time.                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson  agreed. She did  not see where  there would                                                                    
be an  increase in individuals  unless people were  going to                                                                    
spend their entire time on probation.                                                                                           
Ms. Goode agreed.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair  Wilson  invited Ms.  Meade  to  speak to  the  OMB                                                                    
Component Number 768 totaling $1,136,500.                                                                                       
5:30:15 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Mead  noted   that  she  had  discussed   some  of  the                                                                    
provisions  of  the fiscal  note  in  connection with  other                                                                    
bills that  had gone through  the committee. The  changes in                                                                    
the bill  that would  impact the  Court System  included the                                                                    
reclassification  of   many  drug  offenses   and  increased                                                                    
sentences. She detailed  that it was mostly  the impact from                                                                    
reclassifying  the  drug  offenses that  resulted  in  DOL's                                                                    
fiscal   note  seeking   six   new   prosecutors  to   start                                                                    
prosecuting felony drug offenses  that had been unprosecuted                                                                    
over the past few years.  With six new prosecutors the Court                                                                    
System  would need  the resources  to handle  the cases  the                                                                    
prosecutors would  bring; therefore, the fiscal  note sought                                                                    
the  equivalent of  two  full-time  pro-tem judges  (retired                                                                    
judges  who   would  come  back  to   handle  the  increased                                                                    
caseload) who would travel around  the state (a small travel                                                                    
budget was included). Additionally,  an in-court clerk would                                                                    
accompany the judges, which would  result in travel costs as                                                                    
well.  Secondly, the  fiscal note  reflects  an addition  of                                                                    
five  new clerical  positions in  response  to the  agency's                                                                    
requests  for attorneys  and clerical  staff. She  explained                                                                    
that if 750 new drug  cases, the courts needed the resources                                                                    
to handle the  cases and enter the data  into CourtView. The                                                                    
third component of  the fiscal note was  attributable to the                                                                    
increased  use  of  videoconferencing as  reflected  in  the                                                                    
legislative  intent  in  the two  court  rule  changes.  The                                                                    
courts  had  been   doing  videoconferencing  with  existing                                                                    
staff,  but there  were  substantial  associated costs.  The                                                                    
courts   would  also   seek   one   trial  court   statewide                                                                    
coordinator   and   one   technical  person   to   fix   any                                                                    
videoconferencing   equipment   problems    in   any   court                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the  need for two retired [pro tem]                                                                    
judges was  for catchup  purposes. She  surmised it  did not                                                                    
sound like the positions would be permanent.                                                                                    
Ms. Mead  indicated that the  cost was included  through the                                                                    
life of the  fiscal note. The Court System had  opted to use                                                                    
pro  tem judges  because  a new  judge  would be  incredibly                                                                    
expensive. The  idea was to  handle the  additional caseload                                                                    
with  lower cost  positions  who were  also  able to  travel                                                                    
(full-time  judges were  assigned to  a judicial  district).                                                                    
She  anticipated sustaining  the  positions for  as long  as                                                                    
necessary. She clarified  the two judges would  be needed to                                                                    
handle the anticipated 750 new  case filings that would come                                                                    
with the legislation.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson remarked  that she had been  confused by the                                                                    
proposal to  use retired  judges; she  thought it  meant the                                                                    
positions would not be permanent.                                                                                               
Ms.  Mead responded  that the  positions would  be fungible.                                                                    
For example, some  of the retired judges would  work for two                                                                    
months  and another  person would  come in  for another  six                                                                    
months. She explained that sometimes  a retired judge wanted                                                                    
to work for  a limited time period or  location. The funding                                                                    
would  allow  the  Court  System  to  utilize  whomever  was                                                                    
available for  whatever term was  available; the  hope would                                                                    
be to avoid a gap in coverage.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson  communicated her  hope  there  would be  a                                                                    
financial  savings with  the use  of videoconferencing.  She                                                                    
understood it may not be in courts.                                                                                             
Ms. Mead confirmed  that the savings did not  help the Court                                                                    
System. In theory, videoconferencing  would help DPS because                                                                    
it  was statutorily  responsible for  transporting prisoners                                                                    
to court hearings.  She expounded that DPS  could save money                                                                    
by not having  to transport as many people;  she deferred to                                                                    
DPS to  explain how or  why the  change would have  a fiscal                                                                    
impact on the department.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair   Wilson  was   trying  to   figure  out   how  the                                                                    
videoconferencing would  work. She  did not want  the courts                                                                    
to have the  equipment set up but have no  desire to utilize                                                                    
Ms. Mead  replied the courts  would respect  the legislative                                                                    
intent   asking   the   Court   System   to   try   to   use                                                                    
videoconferencing  more. In  order to  try to  use it  more,                                                                    
improved troubleshooting was necessary.  For example, one of                                                                    
the reasons  the equipment  may not  be used  was due  to an                                                                    
equipment failure.  She elaborated it would  be necessary to                                                                    
have  someone  look  globally  at  the  program,  where  the                                                                    
equipment existed, and what the  barriers were, to determine                                                                    
how to adjust the systems to remove barriers.                                                                                   
5:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter stated  there were  other branches                                                                    
of government with videoconferencing  systems and people who                                                                    
maintained them. He  hoped the state would  have the ability                                                                    
to  find  synergy   between  videoconferencing  systems  and                                                                    
individuals  who  managed  them instead  of  having  systems                                                                    
siloed within each  branch or portion of  the government. He                                                                    
thought the problem may be solved in a different manner.                                                                        
Co-Chair  Wilson  agreed.  She  did  not  know  whether  the                                                                    
concept  needed to  be in  statute or  would merely  require                                                                    
everyone working  together. She suggested finding  out where                                                                    
the equipment  was located and  what needed to  be upgraded.                                                                    
She  thought  it  may  just   be  a  needed  operating  cost                                                                    
Ms.  Mead relayed  that the  Court System  personnel handled                                                                    
all  the  videoconferencing  used for  court  hearings  even                                                                    
within the  DOC facilities. She  explained that DOC  did not                                                                    
dedicate  its staff  resources to  the troubleshooting.  The                                                                    
work  was  not siloed  -  Court  System  staff went  to  DOC                                                                    
facilities  to  set  up,   troubleshoot,  and  maintain  the                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  wondered why DOC  was requesting  money for                                                                    
ten additional  people for videoconferencing  if it  was the                                                                    
court's responsibility.                                                                                                         
Ms. Mead  replied that  it was  not necessarily  the court's                                                                    
responsibility  to do  videoconferencing, but  it had  taken                                                                    
the  task  on  because  it had  an  interest  in  increasing                                                                    
efficiencies  in  pretrial  proceedings.  She  believed  the                                                                    
request for ten additional DOC  staff was because DOC needed                                                                    
to supervise defendants  in its facility who were  in a room                                                                    
on the videoconference equipment talking to the courthouse.                                                                     
Representative  Carpenter believed  the  ten employees  were                                                                    
correctional  officers  and   not  specifically  related  to                                                                    
videoconferencing equipment.                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  noted that  she had  not recalled  what the                                                                    
ten positions  would do because  they had been  removed from                                                                    
the budget.                                                                                                                     
5:37:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that the  Department of Law would be                                                                    
reviewing  its  fiscal  note,   OMB  Component  Number  2202                                                                    
totaling $1,488,100 with 13 new full-time positions.                                                                            
Mr. Skidmore explained  that the DOL fiscal  note focused on                                                                    
two  components  of HB  49.  The  first component  was  drug                                                                    
offenses.  He reported  that  when SB  91  had passed,  drug                                                                    
prosecutions had dropped by over  700 per year. He explained                                                                    
that by returning the law  to its previous state (even under                                                                    
the  recidivist approach  to possession  where the  first to                                                                    
offenses were misdemeanors), DOL  anticipated an increase of                                                                    
approximately  700 or  more given  the opioid  epidemic. The                                                                    
fiscal note  included 5 prosecutors  and support  staff. The                                                                    
additional prosecutor and support  staff were related to the                                                                    
driving while  license suspended/canceled/revoked.  He noted                                                                    
that the offense previously accounted  for 17 percent of the                                                                    
misdemeanor caseload. He acknowledged  the number was large,                                                                    
but  the department  believed it  could handle  it with  the                                                                    
additional  resources  because  the  cases  were  not  labor                                                                    
intensive.  The department  did  not anticipate  substantial                                                                    
work, but  there was some  associated with the  2,000 cases.                                                                    
The remainder  of the fiscal  note described what  was going                                                                    
on in the bill - the  department did not anticipate the need                                                                    
for  any  additional resources.  The  cases  and changes  to                                                                    
sentencing,  probation,  or  various other  items  were  all                                                                    
being worked on by the  department; the bill merely adjusted                                                                    
the tools to increase the department's efficacy.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Wilson  observed  that  pretrial,  probation,  and                                                                    
parole  were divided  out on  pages 3  and 4  of the  fiscal                                                                    
note. She asked if there was  a way to break the information                                                                    
out further to  see the fiscal impact of the  changes in the                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore  clarified  that  the  needed  positions  were                                                                    
related  to changes  in  drug statutes  and  in the  driving                                                                    
while license  suspended/canceled/revoked. The  remainder of                                                                    
the  note described  changes, but  none of  those additional                                                                    
changes resulted in a fiscal request from DOL.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the  money would be divided equally                                                                    
between the two components.                                                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore replied in the  negative. He explained that the                                                                    
note included five prosecutors  and associated support staff                                                                    
for drugs and  one prosecutor and support  staff for driving                                                                    
while license suspended/canceled/revoked.  He clarified that                                                                    
in the latter  case, support staff was needed  to handle the                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson highlighted  OMB  Component  Number 512,  a                                                                    
zero  fiscal note  for the  Alaska State  Troopers, prisoner                                                                    
transportation and  OMB Component Number 3200  for statewide                                                                    
support, criminal  justice information systems  program. She                                                                    
invited DPS to review the notes.                                                                                                
Ms. Howell  began with the  zero fiscal note,  OMB component                                                                    
number  3200 for  the criminal  justice information  systems                                                                    
program. The  note related to  sections of the  bill dealing                                                                    
with  sex  offender  registration  requirement  changes  and                                                                    
information  related to  the transmission  of mental  health                                                                    
records  from  the  Court  System  to  DPS.  The  department                                                                    
anticipated  the  number  of sex  offenders  that  would  be                                                                    
required to  register in Alaska  would be manageable  and it                                                                    
was not  requesting additional staffing. She  noted that Ms.                                                                    
Monfreda   had  testified   there  were   about  20   to  22                                                                    
individuals who  had to register  in another state,  but the                                                                    
department had determined  they did not have  to register in                                                                    
Alaska  because their  crime  had not  been  similar to  one                                                                    
requiring registration  in Alaska. The bill  required DPS to                                                                    
adopt  regulations  to  further   clarify  the  process  for                                                                    
determining   the  duration   of   registration  for   those                                                                    
individuals;  the estimated  timeframe for  the adoption  of                                                                    
the regulations was 12 months (included in the note).                                                                           
Ms. Howell addressed the portion  of the note related to the                                                                    
Court System transmitting  records to DPS to  include in the                                                                    
national  instant  check  system.  She  reported  the  Court                                                                    
System was  currently transmitting  the records to  DPS from                                                                    
October  2014  forward. The  bill  would  move the  date  to                                                                    
January 1, 2011  forward, which would allow  more records to                                                                    
be provided to DPS and  federal databases. The work required                                                                    
to  enter the  information into  databases could  be handled                                                                    
with existing  resources. She  clarified that  records being                                                                    
put into the system were  for individuals who were currently                                                                    
federally  prohibited from  possessing firearms.  The change                                                                    
in the  bill did  not impact  a person's  ability to  own or                                                                    
purchase a firearm. The change  would enable DPS to give the                                                                    
information to  the databases  to give  the ability  to make                                                                    
accurate  determinations.  She  added  that  the  department                                                                    
could handle the change with existing resources.                                                                                
5:45:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson asked about  the funding source for                                                                    
the sexual assault kit portion of  the bill. He asked if the                                                                    
cost was reflected in a separate fiscal note.                                                                                   
Ms.  Howell  relayed  that the  bill  before  the  committee                                                                    
included a  provision requiring law enforcement  agencies to                                                                    
submit sexual  assault kits within six  months of collection                                                                    
to the crime  lab. The department's policy  was for troopers                                                                    
to submit  the kits within  30 days after  collection. There                                                                    
would  be  no fiscal  impact  to  DPS  related to  the  bill                                                                    
Representative   Josephson   thought  Representative   Geran                                                                    
Tarr's bill  would clean up  kits that had not  been tested.                                                                    
He assumed there were associated expenses.                                                                                      
Ms. Howell answered that HB  20 had more provisions included                                                                    
that required  kits to  be submitted to  the lab  and tested                                                                    
within  a certain  timeframe and  that  victims be  notified                                                                    
when tests  were complete. She reported  that the provisions                                                                    
were not included in the CS for HB 49.                                                                                          
Co-Chair  Wilson  clarified that  she  was  not certain  the                                                                    
provisions  were supposed  to be  left out  of the  bill and                                                                    
noted  the issue  would be  reviewed.  She acknowledged  the                                                                    
importance of testing the kits.  She wondered if individuals                                                                    
could be charged a fee to register as a sex offender.                                                                           
Ms. Howell replied that it  was within the discretion of the                                                                    
legislature to  include a  fee; DPS  did not  currently have                                                                    
the authority to charge fees to register sex offenders.                                                                         
Co-Chair  Wilson thought  it was  a concept  that should  be                                                                    
Ms. Howell  spoke to  fiscal note  OMB Component  Number 512                                                                    
for the Alaska State  Troopers, prisoner transportation. She                                                                    
addressed cost  savings associated  with increasing  the use                                                                    
of  videoconferencing for  pretrial  hearings. She  detailed                                                                    
that  DPS  was   statutorily  responsible  for  transporting                                                                    
prisoners. She noted it was  the discretion of the court and                                                                    
DPS  had  very  little  control over  which  prisoners  were                                                                    
transported  and  when.  The   department  aimed  to  create                                                                    
efficiencies in  terms of transporting as  many prisoners as                                                                    
possible at  one time via  car, prisoner transport  vans, or                                                                    
Ms. Howell  shared that the legislature's  recommendation to                                                                    
increase the  use of videoconferencing would  result in some                                                                    
cost savings,  but because  the department  was transporting                                                                    
prisoners  regardless, it  was  not  possible to  anticipate                                                                    
what the cost savings, if  any, would be. She reiterated who                                                                    
was  transported  and  when, was  out  of  the  department's                                                                    
control. She  added that the provision  created efficiencies                                                                    
in terms of manpower  and resource allocation. The provision                                                                    
also  helped mitigate  any risk  to law  enforcement or  the                                                                    
defendants as  they were being transported.  There were some                                                                    
very positive  things that would result  from the provision,                                                                    
but a cost savings was not one of them.                                                                                         
Co-Chair   Wilson    relayed   that   the    Department   of                                                                    
Administration  would  be  reviewing its  fiscal  note,  OMB                                                                    
Component Number 43, legal and  advocacy services, Office of                                                                    
Public Advocacy totaling $694,700.                                                                                              
Mr. Stinson  reviewed fiscal note  for the Office  of Public                                                                    
Advocacy. He  reported the  two main  drivers of  the fiscal                                                                    
note related  to the increased  drug prosecutions.  He noted                                                                    
that  Mr.  Skidmore had  made  it  clear the  administration                                                                    
intended  to take  prosecuting drug  crimes very  seriously,                                                                    
which  was in  line with  the governor's  mission. The  note                                                                    
also  accounted for  the  increased  prosecution of  driving                                                                    
with license  revoked (which had previously  been reduced to                                                                    
a violation).  There were  a number of  changes to  the bill                                                                    
that would likely increase litigation  and the strain on the                                                                    
defense side more than the prosecution side.                                                                                    
Mr. Stinson believed much of  the bill was about giving more                                                                    
tools  to prosecutors  and law  enforcement. He  pointed out                                                                    
that it could make defending  the cases much more difficult.                                                                    
For example,  it was  more difficult to  defend a  client in                                                                    
custody. There would be more  attorney time taken doing jail                                                                    
visits  and   things  of  that  nature.   He  detailed  that                                                                    
petitions  to  revoke  probation  were  more  likely  to  be                                                                    
contested. The easiest things to  monetize were the increase                                                                    
in  felony prosecutions  and the  increase  in driving  with                                                                    
license revoked prosecutions.                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if the five  full-time positions were                                                                    
all attorneys or included support staff.                                                                                        
Mr. Stinson  responded that there  were three  attorneys and                                                                    
two support staff. He elucidated  that OPA's structure was a                                                                    
series of independent law firms.  He explained the structure                                                                    
enabled  the agency  to internalize  conflicts. He  detailed                                                                    
that if  there was a  conflict with the public  defenders it                                                                    
came  to  OPA.  While  there  may  be  a  conflict  with  an                                                                    
individual OPA unit, the agency  was still able to place the                                                                    
case within OPA.  He relayed that the agency had  to rely on                                                                    
contractors to some degree, but  he was working hard to find                                                                    
efficiencies.  Ultimately,  the   agency  would  need  three                                                                    
attorneys  given  that  structure.  He  did  not  know  with                                                                    
certainty  where they  would be  placed, but  he assumed  it                                                                    
would  probably  be  Fairbanks, Palmer,  and  Anchorage.  He                                                                    
noted that  one of the  positions could go to  Kenai instead                                                                    
of one of the other locations.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson   appreciated  that   OPA  was   using  its                                                                    
resources the  best it  could. She moved  on to  fiscal note                                                                    
OMB  Component Number  1631,  legal  and advocacy  services,                                                                    
Public Defender Agency, totaling $1,300,900.                                                                                    
5:52:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Goldstein  echoed Mr. Stinson's statement  that the bill                                                                    
was in  line with the  governor's mission and  the increased                                                                    
defense cost  that would create  numerous things  the agency                                                                    
could not  monetize; however,  it was  able to  monetize the                                                                    
increased felony  drug crimes and  the driving  with license                                                                    
revoked  crimes. The  agency was  requesting ten  positions.                                                                    
Five  of  the positions  were  for  attorneys based  on  the                                                                    
anticipation that 600  of the 750 projected  new cases would                                                                    
go to the  Public Defender's Office. She  explained that the                                                                    
American Bar Association set a  standard of 150 felony cases                                                                    
per  attorney  per  year,  which  put  the  agency  at  four                                                                    
attorneys  for  the  felony  drug  cases.  The  agency  also                                                                    
anticipated the  need for one attorney  for cases pertaining                                                                    
to  driving without  a license.  She expounded  that because                                                                    
the  agency   was  more   centralized,  it   was  requesting                                                                    
additional support staff. She  explained that the agency was                                                                    
a paperless office  and saved cost by  archiving its records                                                                    
electronically. With  increased cases the agency  would need                                                                    
another centralized  person and  four support staff  for the                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson  asked if  the agency  kept track  of repeat                                                                    
offenders served by the agency.                                                                                                 
Ms.  Goldstein  responded  that  the  agency  may  have  the                                                                    
ability to  keep track of individuals  coming in - it  had a                                                                    
new database  as of August [2018]  and it was able  to track                                                                    
things  it could  not  track in  the  past. However,  repeat                                                                    
individuals going through  the system may not  all stay with                                                                    
the Public  Defender Office because it  may have represented                                                                    
them in a previous case, but  may no longer have the ability                                                                    
to  represent the  individual due  to  conflict issues.  She                                                                    
explained it would be necessary  for the agency to work with                                                                    
OPA to track the repeat offenders.                                                                                              
Co-Chair Wilson asked Ms. Goldstein  to look into the issue.                                                                    
She asked for  the most recent change  in statute pertaining                                                                    
to a person's eligibility for a free attorney.                                                                                  
Ms.  Goldstein  answered that  she  did  not know  the  most                                                                    
recent  time the  statute  had been  reviewed.  In the  past                                                                    
couple of  sessions, the topic  had been discussed  in terms                                                                    
of whether fees could be increased.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  asked for verification that  just because a                                                                    
person  had  used  a  public  defender  due  to  a  criminal                                                                    
offense,  did not  mean  they  would automatically  conflict                                                                    
them out to OPA [in the future].                                                                                                
Ms.  Goldstein agreed.  She explained  that more  often than                                                                    
not, when  a public  defender had represented  an individual                                                                    
previously, they  would be able to  represent the individual                                                                    
again  in the  future. The  driver of  the conflict  process                                                                    
pertained  primarily  to  witnesses involved  in  cases  and                                                                    
whether the agency  had represented one of  the witnesses in                                                                    
a new case  (meaning the agency would likely not  be able to                                                                    
represent the person in a future case).                                                                                         
Co-Chair Wilson  indicated there  were no  additional fiscal                                                                    
notes that she was aware of.                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz  calculated that the  total for all  of the                                                                    
fiscal notes  equaled approximately $23.5 million  or so. He                                                                    
acknowledged the significance of  the figure and remarked it                                                                    
was  a  statement about  priorities  and  where the  state's                                                                    
dwindling resources  would be spent.  He was puzzled  by the                                                                    
amount  in comparison  to the  Senate versions  totaling $43                                                                    
million. He  remarked that the  current bill  included parts                                                                    
of the Senate bills and additions from other bills.                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson explained  that the  DOC marginal  rate was                                                                    
not used  in the  other fiscal notes.  She detailed  that in                                                                    
previous  fiscal notes  DOC had  multiplied all  of the  new                                                                    
inmates   by  the   larger  amount.   She  highlighted   the                                                                    
significant  difference between  $48 and  $187 [per  day per                                                                    
person], which accounted for the  majority of the difference                                                                    
in the fiscal notes. Additionally,  all of the provisions in                                                                    
the  governor's  bills were  not  included  in the  CS.  She                                                                    
reported that the  CS was a compromise  bill. She considered                                                                    
the money  put into the  bill and the expected  outcome. She                                                                    
pointed  out  that   the  bill  was  the   first  step.  She                                                                    
understood that  with no treatment  and a place  for someone                                                                    
to go when released from jail  with a support system, it was                                                                    
likely they would  end up back in jail. She  stated it was a                                                                    
money  issue, but  it was  also  about quality  of life  and                                                                    
public safety.                                                                                                                  
5:58:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz thought  the  process  was happening  very                                                                    
quickly and he spoke to  the importance of feeling confident                                                                    
about  the financial  numbers  and impact  of  any bill  the                                                                    
committee adopted.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair Wilson  underscored that the fiscal  notes reviewed                                                                    
during  the meeting  were draft  versions. She  reported the                                                                    
committee  would   receive  final  fiscal  notes   prior  to                                                                    
reporting  the   bill  out   of  committee.   She  indicated                                                                    
amendments  were  due Sunday  by  4:00  p.m. to  Legislative                                                                    
Legal Services.  She hoped to  hear amendments on  Monday at                                                                    
9:00  a.m.  She  encouraged  members to  review  the  fiscal                                                                    
notes.  She  highlighted  the  offense  of  driving  with  a                                                                    
suspended  license  and  considered whether  a  citation  or                                                                    
criminalization was the  right course of action  and what it                                                                    
would cost.                                                                                                                     
Representative  Josephson asked  if  the amendment  deadline                                                                    
could be to Legislative Legal Services.                                                                                         
Co-Chair  Wilson  replied  the  deadline was  4:00  p.m.  on                                                                    
Sunday   to   Legislative   Legal  Services.   She   thanked                                                                    
Legislative Legal for all of  their efforts to make sure the                                                                    
committee  had the  CS to  review in  the current  from. She                                                                    
clarified she was  not intending to rush  the committee. She                                                                    
highlighted that the  content included in the  bill had been                                                                    
discussed over the past ten days.                                                                                               
Representative Knopp asked about  Co-Chair Wilson's plan for                                                                    
public testimony.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson  answered that the committee  had previously                                                                    
held public  testimony for HB  49. She reported  that public                                                                    
testimony  would not  be reopened.  She believed  the public                                                                    
would be emailing committee members.                                                                                            
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard asked  if public  testimony                                                                    
could be heard again.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Wilson  would take the request  under consideration                                                                    
depending on the schedule for the week.                                                                                         
6:01:57 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
6:21:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Skidmore to review the repealers.                                                                     
Mr. Skidmore directed committee  members to page 63, Section                                                                    
96,  lines  16 through  21  of  the  CS.  He began  with  AS                                                                    
11.41.432(a)(2)   regarding   the   marriage   defense.   He                                                                    
explained that the bill would  repeal the section that dealt                                                                    
with the defense  as it applied to several  statutes; it did                                                                    
not  repeal  the  concept  of  the  other  person  that  was                                                                    
mentally  incapable. The  bill  would  repeal the  following                                                                    
language "married to the person  and neither party has filed                                                                    
with the  court for  separation, divorce, or  dissolution of                                                                    
marriage." The  bill would change  subsection (b)  to insert                                                                    
the  desired language.  He clarified  that the  language "if                                                                    
the offender  was mentally incapable" was  still included in                                                                    
the statute under subsection (a)(1).                                                                                            
Mr.   Skidmore   highlighted    the   additional   repealers                                                                    
including,  AS  11.46.980(d)  and AS  11.46.982  related  to                                                                    
inflation proofing;  AS 11.56.330(a)(3) dealing  with escape                                                                    
(escape had  been changed  from a Class  A misdemeanor  to a                                                                    
Class C felony;  the offense had been inserted  in the Class                                                                    
C  felony statute  and was  being deleted  from the  Class A                                                                    
misdemeanor  statute);  AS  11.71.030(a)(1)  through  (a)(8)                                                                    
related to  misconduct involving a controlled  substance for                                                                    
the distribution of drugs (the  bill moved the offenses from                                                                    
a  Class  B or  C  felony  to Class  A  or  B felonies);  AS                                                                    
12.25.180(b)(3)  was  an  authorization to  arrest  for  the                                                                    
violation  of conditions  of release  (the bill  changed the                                                                    
offense  back to  a  crime  and the  section  was no  longer                                                                    
necessary);  AS 12.30.055(b)  dealing  with  the ability  to                                                                    
hold  someone on  bail for  a petition  to revoke  probation                                                                    
(the technical  cap setting  a limit for  how long  a person                                                                    
could be  held was  repealed and the  section was  no longer                                                                    
necessary);  AS 12.155.110(c)  through  (h)  dealt with  the                                                                    
caps  on technical  violations in  the sentencing  provision                                                                    
(the  elimination of  the cap  meant the  sections could  be                                                                    
deleted);  and,  AS   12.55.135(l)  dealt  with  misdemeanor                                                                    
sentencing and set it at 5, 10  and 15 days for theft in the                                                                    
fourth degree  (the subsection  was eliminated  and whatever                                                                    
the legislature  set the  range at would  apply to  theft in                                                                    
the fourth degree).                                                                                                             
6:27:12 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Skidmore continued  to review  the repealer  section of                                                                    
the  bill   including  AS  12.55.135(n)  that   limited  the                                                                    
misdemeanor penalty  for controlled substances to  zero days                                                                    
in jail  (the limit  on the sentence  that could  be imposed                                                                    
would  be  eliminated);   12.55.135(o)  was  an  aggravating                                                                    
factor necessary to exceed a  presumptive range found in the                                                                    
misdemeanor statutes  of current  law (the section  would be                                                                    
eliminated when the  law was returned to  [jailtime] of zero                                                                    
to  365  days);  12.55.135(p)  established  the  aggravating                                                                    
factors used  in the misdemeanor sentencing  (the subsection                                                                    
was no longer  needed); and, AS 33.07.010,  AS 33.07.020, AS                                                                    
33.07.030, AS  33.07.040, and  AS 33.07.090  established the                                                                    
Pretrial Enforcement  Division (the responsibilities  of the                                                                    
division  were being  shifted to  probation and  parole). He                                                                    
noted that  one of the  statues may have described  the risk                                                                    
assessment tool.  He reported that  the tool  was referenced                                                                    
in other  places in statute.  He explained that in  the bill                                                                    
cleanup  process they  could move  the statute  referring to                                                                    
the risk assessment tool to another location.                                                                                   
Mr.  Skidmore  reviewed  the   remainder  of  the  repealers                                                                    
including AS  33.16.100(f) that  dealt with  the presumption                                                                    
of  release  (the  offense  was  returned  to  its  previous                                                                    
state); AS  33.16.215 related to  technical caps  for parole                                                                    
(the  caps were  repealed); AS  33.16.220(j) pertained  to a                                                                    
parole  hearing  having  to  occur  within  15  days  for  a                                                                    
technical  violation  (the   technical  violation  had  been                                                                    
eliminated  and the  subsection  was no  longer needed);  AS                                                                    
33.16.240(h) specified  a parolee could be  released if they                                                                    
had met  the 3,  5, or 10-day  technical cap  (the technical                                                                    
cap was  deleted and  the provision  was no  longer needed);                                                                    
and,  AS 33.20.010  related to  good  time if  a person  was                                                                    
sentenced  to less  than 10  days on  a technical  violation                                                                    
(technical violations  had been  eliminated and  the section                                                                    
was no longer necessary).                                                                                                       
6:31:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson  addressed the AS  33.07 repealers.                                                                    
He expressed  confusion about the  administration's position                                                                    
on the Pretrial  Enforcement Division. He had  heard that it                                                                    
would be a standalone entity  as envisioned, but he had also                                                                    
heard  it  would become  a  subset  or additional  probation                                                                    
officers. He asked for detail.                                                                                                  
Mr.  Skidmore  responded  that  the  30  to  60  PCNs  under                                                                    
Pretrial  Enforcement Division  were  being  shifted to  the                                                                    
Division of  Probation and  Parole. The  responsibilities of                                                                    
supervision  pretrial   were  shifted   and  added   to  the                                                                    
responsibilities   described   for  probation   and   parole                                                                    
officers in  the statutes in  the CS. He clarified  that the                                                                    
division would be dissolved in  terms of a separate division                                                                    
with   separate  management.   The  responsibilities   would                                                                    
remain,  and the  people would  be  the same,  but the  bill                                                                    
would shift its location in statute.                                                                                            
Representative  Josephson asked  for  confirmation that  the                                                                    
principle  behind the  Pretrial  Enforcement Division  would                                                                    
remain. He stated his understanding  that employees would be                                                                    
in the  field monitoring individuals on  their conditions of                                                                    
Mr. Skidmore  confirmed that  it was  the precise  intent as                                                                    
drafted in statute.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  indicated the repealers had  been reviewed,                                                                    
the sectional  had been presented, and  public testimony had                                                                    
been  heard. She  remarked that  the bill  was a  compromise                                                                    
bill  with  parts  of the  governor's  bills  included.  She                                                                    
reviewed the  amendment process  and reported  the committee                                                                    
would receive  final fiscal notes on  Monday. She emphasized                                                                    
that the bill was the  first step in criminal justice reform                                                                    
pertaining  to  jailtime. The  second  step  would focus  on                                                                    
treatment and what happened  within communities with reentry                                                                    
HB  49  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
6:34:50 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects