Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2013 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB56 | |
| SB57 | |
| SB49 | |
| SB18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2013
9:27 a.m.
9:27:32 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:27 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Chuck Kopp, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson; Senator Fred Dyson,
Sponsor; Forest Dunbar, Attorney, Juneau; Richard Svobodny,
Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Bruce
Johnson, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators; Senator John Coghill, Sponsor, Senator Mike
Dunleavy.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Sidney Billingslea, Self, Anchorage; Walt Monegan, Alaska
Native Justice Center, Anchorage; Niesja Steinkruger, Self,
Fairbanks; Carmen Gutierrez, Prisoner Re-Entry Task Force,
Anchorage; Scott Sterling, Office of Public Advocacy,
Anchorage; Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Public
Defender's Office, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 192 PAYMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCE LANDING TAX
HB 192 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HR 8 TASK FORCE ON SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION
HR 8 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal note
from the legislature.
[Note: The meeting was recessed until 12:00 p.m.
on April 14, 2013 and HR 8 was reported from
committee at that time. See April 14, 2013
minutes for detail.]
CSSB 18(FIN)am
BUDGET: CAPITAL
HCS CSSB 18(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
[Note: The meeting was recessed until 12:00 p.m.
on April 14, 2013 and HCS CSSB 18(FIN) was
reported from committee at that time. See April
14, 2013 minutes for detail.]
SSSB 49 am
MEDICAID PAYMENT FOR ABORTIONS; TERMS
SSSB 49 am was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 56(JUD)
RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN DRUG OFFENSES
CSSB 56 (JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 57(FIN)
LITERACY, PUPIL TRANSP, TEACHER NOTICES
HCS CSSB 57 was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from Department of Education and
Early Development; one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN2(EED); and one previously
published zero note: FN4(EED).
9:27:49 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that the capital budget would be
heard later in the day. He discussed bills before the
committee and his intent for the meeting.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD)
"An Act relating to certain crimes involving
controlled substances; and providing for an effective
date."
9:30:29 AM
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, communicated that
the bill was part of a national reform movement being led
by conservative states; he referred the "Right on Crime"
movement in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and other. The
movement addressed the spiraling correctional costs and
existing policies that were causing prison systems to
dramatically increase. He relayed that the Alaska prison
system was growing at the fourth fastest rate in the
nation; the state had one of the highest incarceration
rates in the country. He believed it was unfortunate that
an earlier prediction that a new prison would be necessary
had come to fruition. He communicated that it may be
necessary to build another prison in 2016. As a result, the
sponsor had begun looking at the primary growth drivers of
the state's prison population.
Mr. Kopp relayed that a considerable amount of evidence had
come from various groups including the Department of
Corrections (DOC) and the Criminal Justice Working Group
(made up of leaders in DOC, the Department of Public Safety
(DPS), the Attorney General's office, and other drug and
substance abuse groups); the groups had identified that the
primary growth drivers were simple possession drug
offences, theft, and petition to revoke probation. The
sponsor had addressed reasons for incarceration and whether
it was viable to have a prison population that in 10 years
had gone from 40 percent nonviolent to 64 percent
nonviolent with an annual cost of $54,000 per prisoner. The
bill aimed to correct an incongruity in existing law
specifying that any amount of a schedule IA or IIA drug was
a felony offence. The law specifically stated that drug
quantity did not have to be usable (e.g. a shaving of an
oxycodone pill); it only had to be sufficient enough to be
identified in a narcotics test.
Mr. Kopp relayed that the existing law had caught a
significant number of youths up in a felony conviction
status; the felony was never dropped from an individual's
record. Consequences included the inability to qualify for
a student loan, affordable housing, and a job in many
cases. He relayed that the bill made no changes to the
felony offence for the distribution and sale of drugs. The
bill impacted initial, small quantity possession for simple
drug amounts. He relayed that under the current law it was
a class C felony to possess any amount of a schedule IA
controlled substance (e.g. opium, morphine, and pain killer
drugs) or a schedule IIA controlled substance (e.g.
cocaine).
9:34:47 AM
Mr. Kopp explained that the bill would make possession of
the controlled substances a class C felony only if the
defendant in the seven years preceding the offence had been
convicted two or more times of misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first through fifth degree;
misconduct included unclassified felonies (such as selling
schedule I drugs to a child) down to a class A misdemeanor
offence. He pointed to driving under the influence (DUI)
offences as another example of a third-strike law; DUI
offenders were subject to a felony on their third offence.
He emphasized that DUI is lethal behavior and the law
treated the first two offences as misdemeanors. He looked
at domestic violence, assault, and theft where the first
two offences were treated as misdemeanors and the third
offence was a felony. He stressed that the three-strike
policy worked; 70 percent of the people arrested for DUI
never reoffend. He stated that one-third of individuals
sent to jail never reoffended.
Mr. Kopp addressed a second element of the bill related to
a felony threshold for the drug amount possessed on the
first offence. The sponsor had looked to 14 states that had
implemented the approach; the states had received positive
results in the rate of violence and person crime. The bill
set the felony threshold at 15 or more pills of a schedule
IA or IIA substance; likewise, 3 or more grams would be a
felony. Due to the lethal and addictive nature of heroin
the threshold was 0.5 grams or 500 milligrams; similarly,
an exception had also been made for LSD at 300 milligrams.
Any amount exceeding the thresholds would be a felony for
the first offence. He noted that Legislative Research
Services estimated that the change would save the state
approximately $14 million per year; departments including
the Department of Law (DOL) estimated that savings would
occur. He noted that the committee would hear from
researcher Forest Dunbar who had studied at Harvard and
Yale.
Co-Chair Stoltze welcomed the bill sponsor Senator Fred
Dyson to the committee room.
FOREST DUNBAR, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Reclassifying Nonviolent, Small
Quantity Possession Potential Impact on Alaska's Budget and
Society" (copy on file). He noted that the research had
involved the Office of Public Advocacy; however, his
testimony was not affiliated with any state or public
agency.
Mr. Dunbar pointed to slide 1 titled "Reclassification of
Drug Possession." He stressed that the bill would not
prevent DOL from prosecuting drug distribution as a felony;
the crime was a felony if a person was caught with evidence
to distribute drugs of any quantity. He believed the bill
would lead to a reduction in costs for the state in a
variety of ways, which he would discuss. He moved to slide
2 titled "Alaska's Prison Population Growth"; the graph had
been presented by DOC to multiple committees during the
current legislative session. The red line represented the
number of prison beds; the number spiked in 2012/2013 with
the opening of Goose Creek Correctional Center. The blue
line represented the total prison population; the graph
indicated that in 2016 the number of prisoners would
outnumber the number of prison beds. He discussed that the
state would need to decide whether it would construct
another prison or begin exporting prisoners out of state.
He communicated that the state's incarceration [growth]
rate was approximately 3 percent, which was double the
general population growth.
Mr. Dunbar turned to slide 3 titled "Drivers of Alaska's
Prison Population Growth." He relayed that the information
came from an internal DOC memo dated August 24, 2012. The
memo identified three primary drivers including increased
felony theft in the second degree; a rise in prison
admission related to drug offences (nonviolent offences in
particular); and an increase in Petitions to Revoke
Probation (PTRP). He stated that the bill addressed the
second and third points on the slide; it would reduce the
number of people on felony probation, which should reduce
the number of people subject to a PTRP.
9:42:30 AM
Mr. Dunbar addressed a chart titled "Cases Filed in Alaska
Court System with MICS-4 Charges, by Year (2008-2012)"
(slide 4). He explained that Misconduct Involving a
Controlled Substance in the fourth degree (MICS-4) was the
state's lowest level drug felony and related to possession
of any schedule IA or IIA substance. A graph on slide 4
showed that in the past five years the number of MICS-4
cases filed had increased dramatically; the growth
coincided with an increase in incarcerated prisoners with
the charge and with a felony record.
Mr. Dunbar moved to slide 5 titled "Collateral Consequences
from Small-quantity Drug Felonies." He communicated that
the most significant consequence was providing a barrier to
employment; other potential factors included a loss of
federal benefits, affordable housing, and more. He shared
that certain consequences related to employment went beyond
Alaska statutes. For example, an individual with a drug
felony of any kind prohibited work in a facility receiving
Medicare or Medicaid funds; he believed the prohibition was
too broad. Additionally, the Anchorage School District and
the North Slope would not hire an individual with a drug
felony for a period of 10 years. He communicated that the
inability to find employment was a recidivism driver. He
explained that when people serve or avoid time on a
Suspending Imposition of Sentence (SIS) it did not provide
them with a clean record. He noted that an SIS was the most
common way people were adjudicated on first time drug
felony offences.
Mr. Dunbar directed attention to slide 6 titled "Reduced
Legal an Adjudication Costs." He highlighted that it took
close to twice as long to reach disposition in a felony
case compared to a misdemeanor case in Anchorage courts. He
stated that people fought felonies much harder due to the
repercussions. He pointed to slide 7 titled "Annual Savings
from Reduced Legal and Adjudication Costs." He explained
that the reduction in the number of days to disposition had
a direct impact on cost. Additionally, other cost savers
included that a grand jury was not required for misdemeanor
cases, fewer jurors were required if the case went to trial
(6 instead of 12), defense agencies and DOL used less
expensive attorneys for processing misdemeanors versus
felonies. As a result, he projected between $400,000 and
$800,000 in annual savings to the Alaska Court System and
the legal agencies combined. He pointed out that the
estimate did not include any potential DOL savings. He
noted that DOL had been unable to provide data when the
estimates had been done in the fall of 2012.
9:46:19 AM
Mr. Dunbar turned to slide 8 titled "Projected Range of
Annual Savings to DOC from Reduced Incarcerated
Population." He shared that the projections were based on
estimates done on a similar reform in Colorado and
California; Colorado had passed the reform, but California
had not. He had used the California and Colorado data on
hard-bed impact and had changed it for Alaska's cost
structure to reach estimates used on slide 8. He estimated
between $1.5 million and $2 million in annual savings to
DOC within 3 or 4 years. He noted that the Legislative
Legal Services report estimated that current law resulted
in costs of approximately $14 million per year; the report
had not stated that the amount could all be captured as
savings if the law was changed. However, he believed the
findings were indicative that millions to tens of millions
of dollars could be saved through the reform.
Mr. Dunbar addressed slide 9 titled "Public Safety: Map of
Lower-48 States Where Drug Possession is a Misdemeanor."
The map showed 14 states where drug possession was a
misdemeanor. Slide 10 illustrated that there was not a
variable skewing the data towards the 14 states; the group
included poor states like Mississippi, rich states like New
York, urban liberal states like Massachusetts, and rural
conservative states like Wyoming. He relayed that the bill
had been most closely drafted after Wyoming's law; the
state had 3 gram drug limit with a 300 milligram exception
for liquid heroin. The slide showed a comparison between
states where possession was a felony and states where
possession was a misdemeanor. He was not claiming that the
reform would lead to the listed outcomes, but it was the
case in states where possession was a misdemeanor that
lower rates existed for violent crime, property crime,
incarceration, illicit drug use, rape, physical violence,
stalking, and other kinds of domestic violence and higher
rates of drug treatment existed. He stated that there had
been some argument that reform would prevent the state from
administering drug treatment; however, there was evidence
of higher levels of drug treatment in states where drug
possession was a misdemeanor. He noted that date rape drugs
would be excluded from the reform.
Mr. Dunbar provided conclusions on slide 11. He did not
predict that the reform would have a significant impact on
public safety. The reform would reduce the number of
individuals with felony records, which would hopefully lead
to a reduction in unemployment rates and help drive some of
the positive outcomes witnessed in other states. He noted
that the data did show that the reform caused the positive
outcomes in other states; he surmised that the outcomes
were connected to employment. Additionally, the bill would
reduce DOC probation officer caseloads. He relayed that
offenders would not go unsupervised. Alaska and Wyoming did
not have misdemeanor probation officers. He communicated
that under the legislation every person convicted of a
MICS-5 offence would be screened and sent to treatment if
they were found to have a drug addiction. The individuals
would be monitored through informal misdemeanor probation
and by Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
probation officers if in treatment. He concluded that the
reform would save the state up to tens of millions of
dollars over the upcoming decade. He emphasized that real
savings would come to the state by decreasing the prison
population growth curve and delaying the need for another
$250 million prison like Goose Creek.
9:51:51 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that questions would not be
addressed during the meeting. He relayed that the issue
would be examined over the interim. He invited DOL to
testify regarding their concerns. He wanted to set the
framework for issues that the committee would try to
address regarding the legislation.
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that any revision to
criminal law in the state was establishing public policy.
He detailed that the legislature was responsible for policy
decisions whether the police or a prosecutor in any local
community had a like or dislike for the current drug
possession law. He acknowledged that the bill had merit as
part of a general review of sentencing criteria, policies,
and costs in Alaska; however, it did not mean that the
police community or the district attorney offices did not
have concerns that may not be readily apparent. He shared
that the Alaska Peace Officers Association and the Juneau
and Anchorage Police Departments had spoken against the
bill in other committees. He noted that the sponsor had
allowed the department to make amendments to the
legislation; DOL had been very concerned that the initial
bill would have made it a misdemeanor to possess common
date rape drugs. He relayed that the sponsor had quickly
agreed to amend the portion of the bill. He discussed
certain areas the sponsor did not want amended such as
weight thresholds for particular types of drugs. He
explained that in some instances such as LSD, weight was
meaningless; commercial transaction dosages of the drug
were minimal. The department had suggested using a
threshold of five blotter pieces of paper; however, the
crime lab had relayed that it could be distributed in items
such as Jell-O shots.
Mr. Svobodny communicated that DOL's primary concern was
dealing with treatment. He understood that the legislation
did not do away with treatment, but he addressed collateral
consequences. He stated that one reason the possession of
heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and LSD had been a felony
since before statehood was to guarantee that a certified
felony probation officer would be assigned to the
individuals. He noted the distinction between a certified
probation officer and a DHSS probation officer; a felony
probation officer was certified by the Police Standards
Council and could conduct searches and carry firearms. He
stressed that the certified officers would not be available
in misdemeanant possession cases.
9:57:40 AM
Mr. Svobodny stated that in misdemeanant cases a probation
officer would not be available to monitor whether an
offender had gone to treatment. He relayed that felony
probation officers were necessary for two reasons: (1) to
ensure offenders with addiction problems are attending
treatment and (2) to ensure that offenders are not
burglarizing homes or other to feed an addiction. He
emphasized that most possession cases for small amounts of
drugs were really distribution cases that had been reduced
to possession. He pointed to a considerable problem
statewide with drugs such as Oxycotton [OxyContin] which
was a schedule IA controlled substance (the most dangerous
type of drug). There had been an epidemic of youths selling
Oxycotton (three pills cost approximately $150 in Anchorage
and $300 in Juneau); in recognition that the youths were
not likely to reoffend, prosecutors had tended to drop the
charge to possession, which reduced the charge from a class
A to a class C felony. He stated that changing the offence
from a class A felony to a class A misdemeanor was a
substantial drop. He was concerned that prosecutors would
be willing to cut breaks to young kids.
10:00:03 AM
AT EASE
10:00:54 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Neuman took over as meeting chair.
Mr. Svobodny communicated that DOL's primary concern was
that the bill did not deal with treatment for drug addicts.
10:01:36 AM
AT EASE
10:02:20 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Svobodny continued to discuss the department's concern
that the bill would have unforeseen consequences related to
drug rehabilitation. The concern was that there would not
be sufficient motivation for people to be in the programs.
For example, currently in Anchorage people preferred to go
to jail on a class C felony offence rather than to
therapeutic court. He stated that with the proposed reform
people would not go to therapeutic courts. He cautioned
about the use of models and statistics from other states.
He relayed that Wyoming had a lifetime look-back compared
to the seven-year look-back used in the bill [related to
the three-strike rule]. He noted that the difference was
substantial. The bill had originally included a three-year
look-back; the department had requested an amendment to ten
years and the sponsor had compromised with a seven-year
period.
Mr. Svobodny advised the committee to be cautious when
reviewing the number data provided. He stated that crimes
against people were listed in AS 11.41 and under some
municipality ordinances; the list did not include items
such as arson or blowing up a pipeline. The numbers cited
in support of the legislation counted a group of
individuals who should be in jail; people who had committed
multiple burglaries or other.
10:05:09 AM
Mr. Svobodny agreed that it sounded like a waste of state
money that offenders were in jail for crimes that were not
crimes against people; however, he pointed to a current
court of appeals decision related to a person with 50 prior
convictions. He stated that the individual deserved to be
in jail. He reiterated his words of caution about what the
numbers provided in support of the legislation meant. He
emphasized that the department's concerns about the
legislation did not mean there should not be a holistic
review of the state's correctional system. He detailed that
the U.S. had a higher incarceration rate than almost any
other nation, which meant that something the country was
doing was not right. He referred to a current bill that
would create a sentencing commission to look at the issues
holistically rather than looking only at certain drugs. He
credited Kelly Howell with DOC [corrected to DPS below] for
catching that the bill would have made the most commonly
used date rape drug a misdemeanor. He emphasized that
further review and something like a sentencing commission
was needed.
Representative Edgmon corrected that Kelly Howell was the
legislative liaison for DPS. Mr. Svobodny agreed.
10:07:39 AM
Representative Holmes shared the concern that the
legislation would effectively remove probation officers for
offenders and that treatment would not be as readily
available. She wondered if the answer was to either
maintain the felony charge or to extend probation and
treatment to the class of offences whether they were
misdemeanors or felonies.
Mr. Svobodny did not know whether either of the options was
the right answer. He noted that the state had used both
kinds of systems. He opined that people with drug
addictions should be treated before getting to the criminal
justice system.
10:08:50 AM
SIDNEY BILLINGSLEA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She provided her background
as a private criminal defense attorney. She pointed to a
letter of support she had provided (copy on file). She
believed the production of possession crimes from a felony
to a misdemeanor for the first two offences within the
look-back period was a humane and honest way of dealing
with the problem that was criminal, but also addiction
driven. She stated that there was a need for treatment of
individuals with addiction problems or an illegal use
problem. She detailed that the existing model was dependent
on discretion of individual prosecutors throughout the
state and of the defense attorney (many class C felonies
could be reduced to a misdemeanor for possession of a
controlled substance); the conviction depended on the
prosecutor, the day of the week, and the person appearing
before the court. She reiterated her belief that reducing
the crime to a misdemeanor would be an honest way of
dealing with the system.
Ms. Billingslea believed the savings over time could result
in an allocation of resources to treatment programs and
facilities. She pointed to the multitude of failures that
occurred when individuals did not receive adequate
treatment. She respectfully disagreed with earlier
statements that the bill would result in a lack of
oversight for offenders. She expounded that there was
significant oversight for community work service and
alcohol safety action program participants; people did get
misdemeanant petitions to revoke probation when they did
not do their community service and other. She stated that
most people did not reoffend. She acknowledged that addicts
may offend a couple of times and she believed the statute
addressed the issue. She pointed to 1988 when sentencing
guidelines had gone into effect; federal statutes provided
for misdemeanor possession of controlled substances.
10:14:10 AM
WALT MONEGAN, ALASKA NATIVE JUSTICE CENTER, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He spoke to his law enforcement background in Alaska. He
discussed the necessity of conceiving a strategy when
fighting crime in order to be the most effective in
addressing the issue. He stated that under the current law
individuals had been put in jail in record numbers for drug
possession. He spoke to the importance of reviewing the
strategy. He stated that although the existing law had
removed people from the streets, it had caused an imbalance
within the criminal justice system. He asked the committee
to support the bill in order to reevaluate the current
strategy. He discussed that the three-strike rule worked
for DUI cases. He believed the bill presented a better
strategy; he noted that if it was unsuccessful the system
could revert to the current law. He emphasized that the
U.S. had a higher incarceration rate than any other
country. He believed the bill provided a better way to move
forward.
10:17:29 AM
NIESJA STEINKRUGER, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She provided her
background as a former superior court judge in Fairbanks.
She spoke to costs related to felonies versus misdemeanors.
She observed that the state had gone through a 25-year
period where a belief existed that a crime was not taken
seriously unless it was a felony. She discussed what she
called the "felony machine" in Alaska; the machine used the
top flight resources including the most experienced
district attorneys and public defenders. Felons also
received probation officers and cases were handled in the
superior court versus the district court. She stated that
drug crimes were competing to get on the superior court
schedule with domestic violence, sexual assault, child
abuse, and crimes of violence.
Ms. Steinkruger stated that her primary concern was related
to the use of the grand jury system particularly in rural
Alaska. She explained that each felony crime required an
indictment by the grand jury; it required that police
officers and witnesses sit in a hallway waiting to get in
front of the grand jury. Additionally, 60 citizens were
called in to fill 18 slots and anywhere from 4 to 12
alternate slots. In rural Alaska the state paid to bring in
potential jurors by airplane, snow machine and boat. The
state also paid for the individuals' hotel. The individuals
missed work, could not find child care, and had to travel.
She communicated that a number of Alaskans did respond to
the summonses and the jury pool had been worn out. She
relayed that the number of felonies continued to grow until
an indictment was required.
Ms. Steinkruger furthered that the state was not always
receiving a positive percentage return on grand jury and
the expense was substantial. She explained that grand
jurors in rural Alaska sat for 1 to 3 months and were
required to come in every week. She urged the committee to
take the human cost of the system into account. She
observed that consequences and treatment were desired for
drug possession cases. She stressed that treatment programs
were lacking in Alaska, but similarly to DUI they could be
provided if focus was given to the issue. She assured the
committee that the legislature's examination of the issue
would remind judges that misdemeanors were serious crimes
as well. She urged the committee to consider saving the
felony machine for the worst offenders and in cases when
intervention was not successful.
10:22:53 AM
Representative Wilson wondered if the necessary treatment
would still be available for offenders or if the proposed
reform would increase the level of repeat offenders. Ms.
Steinkruger replied that treatment was a serious problem in
the state whether the offense was classified as a felony or
misdemeanor; however, the largest drug in Alaska was
alcohol and she believed the state was slowly beginning to
address alcohol treatment and statutes. She elaborated that
a focus on treatment was beginning to effect change in the
state. She did not believe there was a magic answer, but
she did believe that intervention with treatment was
necessary. She stated that felonies did not guarantee
treatment.
Representative Edgmon thanked Ms. Steinkruger for her
comments. He appreciated her clarity and emphasis on how
the issue was impacting rural Alaska.
Vice-Chair Neuman relayed Co-Chair Stoltze's intent to
refer the bill to a subcommittee for further review. He
noted that testimony during the meeting had been invited
and public testimony would occur at a later time.
10:25:10 AM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, PRISONER RE-ENTRY TASK FORCE, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), voiced support for the legislation.
She spoke to her background as a criminal law attorney. She
discussed the annual prison population growth of 3 percent
and the continued growth of the DOC budget. In 2002 42
percent of the prison population had been considered
nonviolent; the number had grown to 62 percent in 2011. She
believed it was important to look at the number of
admissions that DOC received for felony drug offences. She
relayed that from 2002 to 2012 admissions for felony drug
offences had risen by over 81 percent. She stated that it
was important to note who the offenders were. For example,
in 2011 348 admissions for felony drug offences were for
individuals between the ages of 18 and 29. She emphasized
that the individuals would remain convicted felons for
their entire lives; they would be required to report the
information whenever applying for employment. She stressed
that the felony conviction had substantial lasting
consequences on an individual in terms of their ability to
receive school loans and employment.
Ms. Gutierrez communicated that over the past 10 years the
length of stay for felony offenders had increased by an
additional year. She asked the committee to consider that
the DOC budget, length of prison stay, and the number of
individuals convicted as felons all continued to increase.
She stated that the statistics would be acceptable if the
items were effective in reducing recidivism; however, that
was not the case. She referenced a 2011 Alaska Judicial
Council finding that two out of three Alaskans returned to
prison for a probation violation or arrest within the first
three years of their release. She stressed that the state
was not receiving good value for money spent on the prison
system. She applauded the committee for its attention to
the important issue.
Ms. Gutierrez continued that the state had effectively
dealt with DUI crime by making the third offence a felony.
She stated that the recidivism rate for first-time DUI
offenders was low because the individuals were required to
go to the Alcohol Safety Action program for screening and
to follow through with treatment. She emphasized that
individuals under the legislation would be required to do
the same. She stated that an individual would be designated
a felony offender if they could not come to terms with
their addiction. She believed the individuals should be
given the opportunity to deal with an issue that was
predominately addiction related versus criminal activity.
10:31:21 AM
SCOTT STERLING, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. The Office
of Public Advocacy (OPA) believed the bill would benefit
its clients who would be labeled as misdemeanants as
opposed to felons, which would enable them to reintegrate,
help to reduce recidivism, and to find employment. He
relayed that the two primary deterrents to crime were a
stable family environment and employment. The office
believed that the bill may help keep families together
because incarcerated parents had a very negative effect on
children and family members. He referred to research
reporting that an incarcerated parent had the same negative
effect as domestic violence. He furthered that children of
incarcerated parents were more likely to end up in the
juvenile justice system. He stated that the bill would
reduce agency expenses because misdemeanor cases were
typically less expensive to handle. He agreed with earlier
testimony that top flight personnel including attorneys and
courts tended to focus on felonies.
10:33:50 AM
QUINLAN STEINER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced support for the
bill. He stated that the bill would primarily have an
impact on young people in the state. He observed that
youths tended to make decisions that were not fully thought
through; youths ended up in the situation prior to when
true addictions developed, but were then labeled as felons
for their entire lives. He stated that the label prevented
the individuals from an ability to be productive. The
proposal would allow individuals to take personal
responsibility for their decisions and to correct their
behavior. He stated that misdemeanors were an effective
penalty and the alcohol screening and treatment referral
was a robust process that ensured a person was matched up
with the appropriate program. He pointed to a concern of
over supervision in felony cases, which could have a
negative impact on a person's ability to rehabilitate
themselves. He believed the bill would allow the system to
differentiate between people who could be diverted by one
interaction with the criminal justice system and others who
had developed true addictions needing more active
supervision.
10:36:08 AM
Representative Wilson wondered about felonies for
juveniles; she thought that juvenile records were sealed.
Mr. Steiner replied that a felony was part of a juvenile's
record, but it was confidential; however, it could be used
against an individual later. He stated that youths over the
age of 18 would have felony records for the rest of their
lives. He noted that significant research existed showing
that brain development and decision making did not fully
mature until a person's mid-20s.
10:37:12 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman ClOSED invited testimony.
Senator Dunleavy joined the room.
Mr. Kopp spoke to recognition by prior testifiers of a need
for reform. The sponsor's goal was to address the
brokenness of the system. He pointed to his background in
law enforcement. He recalled many years of arresting
individuals for the possession of minimal amounts of drugs;
after 20 years it had begun to bother him. He pointed to
the cycle of brokenness in families with incarcerated
parents. He emphasized that the incarceration approach was
not solving the problem. He contended that the bill's
treatment amendment was very robust. He pointed to 15
alcohol safety action programs in the state and multiple
drug treatment programs. He relayed that the amendment had
been done at DOL's request; he was surprised to receive
pushback from the department. He shared that the look-back
period had been extended; if an individual did have an
addiction problem they would quickly earn a felony label.
He communicated that the date rape drug GHB had been
excluded from the proposed reform; following the amendment,
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
had expressed support for the legislation.
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
CSSB 56(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:41:12 AM
AT EASE
10:43:10 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57(FIN)
"An Act relating to parental involvement in education;
adjusting pupil transportation funding; amending the
time required for employers to give tenured teachers
notification of their nonretention; and providing for
an effective date."
10:43:15 AM
Representative Costello moved HCS CSSB 57(EDC) before the
committee.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, communicated that
the bill did three things. First, there was an increasing
body of evidence that it was critical for children to be
proficient in reading by the third grade. He shared that
many states had policies to address the issue including
identification in the form of assessments; intervention
with programs such as summer school or home reading
programs; and retention (holding students back a grade
level). He noted that identification, intervention, and
retention all fell under local control. The bill would
allow for the state to take action by providing information
to parents about the importance of reading proficiency by
grade 3. Pamphlets including the information would be
provided to districts to inform parents of the importance
of their involvement including reading at home. The bill
also required the department to establish a media campaign.
Mr. Lamkin addressed the second component of the bill
related to layoff notifications for tenured teachers. He
detailed that March 16 had been established as the date as
early as 1949. He communicated that the legislature rarely
knew what the budget would look like by March 16.
Subsequently requiring districts to provide notification to
teachers by March 16 without knowing the next year's budget
caused unnecessary angst. The bill would change the date to
May 15 in order to accommodate the legislative session
schedule and to provide districts with flexibility.
Mr. Lamkin addressed the third component of the legislation
related to pupil transportation. He discussed that the
legislature had come close to passing an annual Consumer
Price Index adjustment for pupil transportation contracts.
He explained that districts had the pupil transportation
adjustments built into their contracts; therefore, the
money would ultimately come out of classrooms if funding
was not provided. The provision would provide a three-year
funding mechanism for an adjustment in inflation, which
would sunset with the anticipation of a statewide contract.
10:47:04 AM
Representative Wilson referred to a literacy blue print
that had been funded the prior year. She wondered whether
the item fell into the K-3 parent information. Mr. Lamkin
deferred the question to the department.
Vice-Chair Neuman OPENED public testimony.
BRUCE JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, spoke in support of the bill. He stated
that early literacy was critically important for future
school and life success. He relayed that the layoff
provision would provide increased flexibility in the
issuance of pink slips and layoffs under consideration. The
change would also provide more time for a teacher under
review to show improvement. He relayed that most contracts
were issued beginning in February in rural districts as
they prepared for the following year and attending the job
fair that was currently underway in Anchorage. He detailed
that many teachers were offered contracts as soon as the
district knew it was in the clear financially. He relayed
that the districts would not be waiting until May 15 to
offer contracts. He spoke to the importance of the pupil
transportation issue; the transportation was costly and
money would be taken from classrooms if the legislature did
not provide funding.
10:49:37 AM
Representative Wilson asked whether there were districts
that did not provide information on the importance of
reading. Mr. Johnson believed every district did address
the issue, but perhaps not in a formal or written way.
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello spoke to the three fiscal notes.
Fiscal Note 2 from the Department of Education and Early
Development had a zero impact. A new fiscal note from the
Department of Education and Early Development had an impact
of $736,300 in FY 14, $1,502,000 in FY 15, $3,435,800 in FY
16 through FY 19. Fiscal Note 4 from the Department of
Education and Early Development had an impact of $45,400 in
FY 14 through FY 19.
Representative Wilson added that the legislature had
increased funding for literacy in the budget for the
upcoming year. She hoped the department would work with the
districts on utilizing the funds.
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 57 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 57 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from
Department of Education and Early Development; one
previously published fiscal note: FN2(EED); and one
previously published zero note: FN4(EED).
10:52:47 AM
AT EASE
10:56:18 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze resumed as meeting chair.
10:56:28 AM
AT EASE
11:00:33 AM
RECONVENED
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 49 am
"An Act relating to women's health services and
defining 'medically necessary abortion' for purposes
of making payments under the state Medicaid program."
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SSSB 49(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS0410\Y
(Mischel, 4/13/13).
Representative Costello OBJECTED.
A roll call began and was voided by Co-Chair Stoltze prior
to its completion.
11:02:10 AM
AT EASE
11:02:29 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the previous motion to adopt
the CS. He asked the bill sponsor to explain his preference
and the substantive differences between the CS and the
prior bill version.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, spoke in favor of the bill
version that removed a family planning mandate; he believed
the cost would be approximately $1 million per year. He
relayed that much of the provision would do something that
was already done in the state. He believed the current
operating budget had addressed some of the issues. He
relayed that there were 18 core services under the
component for women, children, and family services. He
listed some of the services including school nursing,
school health consultation, technical assistance for
optimal health and safety, and educational achievement
growth and development for school-aged children (AS 10
related to child health; AS 5 related to reproductive
health services). Additional services included a prenatal
health program aimed at safeguarding and promoting the
health of Alaskan mothers and babies through leadership and
partnering and promoting professional standards.
Senator Coghill listed additional core services under the
women, children, and family component including a women's
health program that promoted resources and was essentially
about healthy living. He stated the program was at the core
of what the amendment had requested. The fifth core service
related to an adolescence health team, out of wedlock
prevention program to promote healthy relationships and
strategies to prevent "mistimed" pregnancies. Another core
service related to emergency and disaster preparedness for
pregnant and postpartum women, children, and adolescents
(particularly for individuals with special health care
needs). He discussed a data analysis resulting from surveys
on pregnancy risk assessment and monitoring. Additionally,
a maternal, infant, and child death review was conducted.
He stated that the amendment directed the state to do a
"health care plan rewrite."
Senator Coghill mentioned a request from the current year
and budgetary struggles. The request would add federal and
state funds into the program on top of current funding. He
read from component challenges related to the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) budget: "continued lack
of access to family planning providers in many areas of the
state contribute to the persistently high mistimed out of
wedlock teen births." He relayed that help had been
requested. He encouraged that "if we really want to do
this, we can do it much more measured rather than doing it
under this, what I would consider a rather large mandate."
The mandate would require a rewrite of the entire health
plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services for approval. He relayed that approval
already existed and the issue was talked about in the
existing DHSS budget.
11:06:23 AM
Representative Edgmon stressed that the bill focused on a
"hugely controversial" issue. He requested to come back to
the bill after the House floor session.
Senator Coghill offered to make the information available
to committee members.
Co-Chair Stoltze deferred to Representative Edgmon's
request. He expressed his desire to vote on the adoption of
the CS prior to recessing. He expected that a vigorous
debate would occur at a later time. He wanted to have the
discussion with the "member's" bill before the committee.
Representative Edgmon requested to defer action on the
adoption of the CS. Co-Chair Stoltze agreed to defer
action.
Representative Edgmon requested an opportunity to
contemplate the adoption of the CS.
11:07:45 AM
RECESSED
7:21:09 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 18(FIN) am
"An Act making, amending, and repealing
appropriations, including capital appropriations,
supplemental appropriations, reappropriations, and
other appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date."
7:21:35 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed a workdraft for CSSB 18(FIN) am
and relayed that it contained several errors that would be
corrected following its adoption.
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for CSSB 18(FIN) am, Work Draft 28-
GS1798\H (Martin, 4/13/13). There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stoltze RECESSED the meeting until the following
day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to the filing date for the final quarterly
payment of, and to the assessment of penalties under, the
fishery resource landing tax."
HB 192 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
7:23:22 PM
RECESSED UNTIL 12:16 PM, APRIL 14, 2013.