Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/06/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB135 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 6, 2015
1:38 p.m.
1:38:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Les Gara
ALSO PRESENT
John Boucher, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative
Steve Thompson; Ben Brown, Commissioner, Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission, Department of Fish and Game;
Jerry Burnett, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue; Representative Tammie Wilson,
Sponsor; Remond Henderson, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Corrections; Kaci Schroeder, Legislative Liaison,
Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska
Court System.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Carrie Belden, Director, Division of Parole in Probation,
Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY
HB 135 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ROTH CONTRIBUTIONS
HB 135 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
HB 155 FEES; WAIVERS; CREDITS; DEDUCTIONS; TAXES
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 15 CREDITS FOR TIME SERVED/GOOD TIME
HB 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 135
"An Act establishing a Roth contribution program for
the public employees' deferred compensation program;
and providing for an effective date."
1:39:42 PM
JOHN BOUCHER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, was available for questions.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED Public Testimony
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED Public Testimony.
Representative Munoz MOVED to REPORT HB 135 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note(s). There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
HB 135 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
1:42:41 PM
AT EASE
1:43:58 PM
RECONVEYENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to fees charged by the commercial
fisheries entry commission; repealing an exploration
incentive credit; amending the calculation of adjusted
gross income for purposes of the tax on gambling
activities aboard large passenger vessels; repealing
the amount that may be deducted from the motor fuel
tax to cover the expense of accounting and filing for
the monthly tax return; repealing a provision allowing
an investigation expense under the Alaska Small Loans
Act to be in place of a fee required under the Alaska
Business License Act; repealing the amount that may be
deducted from the tobacco excise tax to cover the
expense of accounting and filing for the monthly tax
return; repealing the discount on cigarette tax stamps
provided as compensation for affixing the stamps to
packages; repealing the amount that may be deducted
from a tire fee remittance to cover the expense of
accounting and filing for the quarterly fee return;
and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Thompson began his presentation from a prepared
statement:
In the 28th Legislature, legislation was passed that
defined Indirect Expenditure as foregone revenue. The
legislation set forth a requirement that certain
reports identify potential loss of foregone revenue.
Earlier this session this committee received an
overview of the Legislative Finance Indirect
Expenditure Report identified certain credits, fees,
discounts, and deductions that should be terminated.
House Bill 155 (HB 155) repealed those indirect
expenditures with an estimated increase of revenue by
approximately $450,000. The indirect expenditure
repeal in House Bill 155 were selected for repeal for
various reasons that range from the expenditure did
not meet legislative intent, had limited benefit or
usage, and were obsolete due to inactivity or
replacement by electronic filings.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
placed himself on the record and stated that HB 155 was the
next step in addressing foregone revenue to the state
identified in the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report. HB 155
repealed the following indirect expenditures as follows:
• Small Loan Company Business License Exemption
Pg. 3 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Reduced Permit Fees,
Pg. 48 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• CFEC Reduced Application Fees
Pg. 50 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• CFEC Reduced Expediting Fees
Pg. 51 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• CFEC Reduced Transfer Fees
Pg. 52 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Exploration Incentive Credit
Pg. 97 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Tobacco Product Tax Deduction for Timely Filing
Pg. 141 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Cigarette Tax Stamp Discount
Pg. 142 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Motor Fuel Tax Timely Filing
Pg. 143 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Large Passenger Vessel Gambling Tax Deduction
Pg. 163 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
• Tire Tax Discount for Timely Filing
Pg. 167 of the 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report
Mr. Anderson provided a sectional analysis of the bill and
read from a prepared statement:
Section 1: Adds a new section AS 16.43.100 to address
the removal of the low income permit fees and require
the (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission) CFEC to
issue permits at the same cost to all permit holders.
Section 2: Amended AS 16.43.160(a) requiring the
commission to make each person pay the same fee with
the exception of the non-resident surcharge. The non-
resident exemption was included to ensure compliance
with the Carlson decision.
Section 3: Removed references to AS 38.05.180(i), the
Exploration Incentive Credit from AS 41.09.010(a).
Section 4: Removed references to AS 38.05.180(i) from
AS 41.09.010(b).
Section 5: Removed references to AS 38.05.180(i) from
AS 43.20.043(g).
Section 6: Amended 43.55.210 to disallow the deduction
for federal taxes for the purposes of calculating the
state tax on large passenger cruise ship gambling
activity.
Section 7: Amended AS 43.40.010(c) by removing
language that allowed motor fuel dealers to retain a
portion of the motor fuel tax due to cover expenses
for filing motor fuel tax return.
Section 8: Removed references to AS 43.50.540 from AS
43.50590(a) to conform to the repeal of AS
43.50.540(c) in Section 12.
1:49:19 PM
Section 9: Removed references of the Exploration
Incentive Credit from AS 43.55.011(m) to conform to
the repeal of AS 38.05.180(i) in Section 12.
Section 10: Removed references to the Exploration
Incentive Credit (AS 38.05.180(i)) from AS
43.55.023(a) to conform to the repeal of AS
38.05.180(i) in Section 12.
Section 11: Removed references to AS 38.05.180(i) from
AS 43.55.023(l) to conform to the repeal of AS
38.05.180(i) in Section 12.
Mr. Anderson continued with Section 12 that contained the
Statute Repealers:
· AS 06.20.030(c) was the subsection that allowed
the license fee Small Loan Company License to
replace the Alaska Business License.
· AS 16.43.160(d) was the subsection that
established the reduced fee for low income permit
holders within the CFEC.
· AS 38.05.180(i) was the subsection that
established the Exploration Incentive Credit.
· AS 41.09.030 is the section that referenced the
relationship of the Exploration Incentive Credit
to Title 41 Chapter 9 (which is Title 41 - Public
Resources / Chapter 09 - Oil and Gas Exploration
Incentive Credits).
· AS 43.50.330(b) was the subsection establishing
the filing deduction for the Excise Tax on
Tobacco Products.
· AS 43.50.540(c) was the subsection that
established the discount for the Cigarette Tax
Stamps.
· AS 43.50.540(h) established a definition of the
stamps that were eligible for the discount.
· AS 43.98.025(e) was the subsection that
established the deduction for filing in the Tire
Fees.
Mr. Anderson cited the three Code repealers in Section 13:
· 20 AAC 05.250(b) was the code that established
the reduced fee for low income permit holders
within the CFEC.
· 20 AAC 05.425(e)(1)(2) was the code that
established the reduced fee for expediting fees
for low income permit holders within the CFEC.
· 20 AAC 05.1910(h) was the code that established
the reduced fee for transfer fees for low income
permit holders within the CFEC.
Mr. Anderson spoke to the final three sections:
Section 14: Provided transitional language related to
the repeal of the Exploration Incentive Credit and
CFEC low income transfers.
Section 15: Contained the effective date of January 1,
2016 for the gambling tax activities based off of the
federal tax calendar year and the fact that the
gambling tax was paid annually.
Section 16: Contained the effective date of July 1,
2015 for all other sections in order to comply with
the State of Alaska fiscal calendar and all other
related fees, discounts, deductions that were
calculated monthly.
Representative Wilson shared that she supported the
legislation.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to know whether HB 155
included all of the indirect expenditures recommended for
termination in the Indirect Expenditure Report (copy on
file).
Mr. Anderson responded that the report identified several
indirect expenditures for termination having to do with
corporate income tax. Other indirect expenditure regarding
corporate income tax were recommended for policy review and
reconsideration. He relayed that the sponsor thought the
corporate income tax indirect expenditures needed to be
further scrutinized and examined comprehensively as a whole
and were not included in the legislation.
1:54:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked whether the finance analysis
in the report was provided by LFD. Mr. Anderson confirmed
that the recommendations came from LFD and added that the
numbers were provided by the Department of Revenue (DOR).
Representative Kawasaki asked whether DOR had any comments
regarding the recommendations from LFD.
JERRY BURNETT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TREASURY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, indicated that the department had
had discussions about the recommendations. He reported that
the department supported the legislation.
Representative Kawasaki understood terminating the direct
expenditures that had never been used or did not generate
revenue. He wondered whether DOR was comfortable with
terminating the credits that had a fiscal impact because
the credits were rarely used or had a negligible benefit.
Mr. Burnett responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Thompson asked why the new DOR fiscal note
contained an appropriation for $50 thousand for updating
tax forms and contractor work to program the changes into
the Tax Revenue Management System (TRMS). He thought that
the appropriation was high.
Mr. Burnett responded that he would have to review the
estimate from the contractor. He added that each time
changes were made to the system the contractor was required
to update the system. He stated that the amount was the
departments "best estimate" of the contractor's charges.
Representative Gattis referred to legislation regarding the
Tire Tax [HB 88 Fees For Tires] and hoped that along with
passage of HB 155 the tax system would only collect the
taxpayers' information that was absolutely necessary.
Mr. Burnett stated that he had discussed the issue with the
deputy director of the tax division and reported that the
division was committed to reducing the amount of
information required.
1:59:50 PM
Co-Chair Neuman cited the fiscal note and wondered whether
the department had a contingency plan if the contractor
costs were less than $50 thousand.
Mr. Burnett replied that with passage of the legislation
the fiscal note would appropriate the entire $50 thousand
to the department. He qualified that if the costs were less
DOR would work with LFD and either lapse the funds or
include them in the supplemental budget. Co-Chair Neuman
commented that the fiscal note should be further examined.
Representative Guttenberg cited page 97 of the report
regarding the Oil and Gas Production Tax, State Royalty
credit and read the following:
Recommend termination. The credit appears obsolete and
ineffective given that it hasn't been used in over a
decade. The Alternative Credit for Exploration (AS
43.55.025 (a) (1-4)) appears to be a more attractive
incentive.
Representative Guttenberg indicated that there were two
incentives but only one was being used. He wanted to know
how it was determined which incentive was the best one to
remove.
Mr. Burnett was not prepared to answer the question. He
believed there had been an ongoing discussion about what
credits were necessary. He guessed that the credits
included in AS 43.55.025 were the most recent and the one
recommended for termination was outdated.
Representative Pruitt referenced Section 7, related to the
motor fuel tax. He asked whether the bill was simply
removing the incentive to file on time and no penalty was
applied. Mr. Anderson was not able to answer the question.
Mr. Burnett stated that all taxes had penalties for late
filing. He elaborated that penalties and interest were
charged to late filers. Currently, filing taxes was much
easier than when the incentives were initially implemented.
Representative Pruitt wanted to understand the tax system
in a historical context. He confirmed that currently an
incentive and a penalty was in place. He deduced that
currently incentives were less necessary due to the ease of
filing. Mr. Burnett responded in the affirmative.
2:05:32 PM
Representative Munoz asked what the amount of the gambling
tax collected by the state was. Mr. Burnett responded that
he would follow up with the answer. Representative Munoz
asked what the amount of revenue was generated through the
gambling tax. Mr. Burnett could not recall the exact amount
and pledged to provide the answer.
Representative Munoz asked why the sponsor decided to
remove the deduction of federal taxes from gambling
proceeds. Mr. Anderson responded that typically, state
taxes were deducted from federal taxes and not the other
way around. He indicated that the change was suggested to
align with the state's tax structure. Representative Munoz
asked if the state was assessing the tax on the federal
portion of gambling proceeds as well. Mr. Anderson deferred
to Mr. Burnett.
Mr. Burnett explained that DOR assessed a tax based on all
of the revenues earned on gambling in state waters.
Currently, the federal tax paid was deducted prior to
determining the state tax. The legislation would levy the
tax on the entire earnings and the federal tax would be
levied on the revenue less the state tax, which was aligned
with how the department collected most other taxes.
Representative Edgmon had questions regarding the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). He cited page
48 from the Indirect Expenditure Report and asked where the
233 individuals eligible for the reduced permit fees were
located in the state.
BEN BROWN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied that he
unaware of the specific geographic regions the individuals
resided in and offered to provide the information. He
guessed that many of the individuals resided in rural
Alaska.
Representative Edgmon wondered what the impact of the
additional costs of the permit fees would have on the areas
where the individuals resided. He wondered what the reduced
fee amounted to per individual.
Mr. Brown indicated that the reduction was 50 percent and
fees ranged from $75 to $3000 depending on the statutory
formula. Therefore, the reduction for a $3000. fee was
substantial. He believed that elimination of the fee
reduction was "relative" and that collectively was "not
that much for the department ($17,921.) but could be a
hardship for the individual.
2:12:26 PM
Representative Gara asked whether there was any other tax
that operated like the gambling tax; allowing a deduction
of federal taxes before paying state taxes. Mr. Burnett was
not aware of any other tax similarly levied in the state.
Representative Gara stated that he was having difficulty
understanding the statue references from the indirect
expenditure report concerning exploration incentive credits
and what credits were terminated in HB 155. He expressed
confusion and wanted to ensure the wrong credit was not
being eliminated. Discussion ensued among the committee
members in an attempt to clarify the issue.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged that the issue was
complicated and pointed out that his staff was available to
answer committee member's questions.
Representative Gara asked for confirmation that AS
38.05.180 (i), the exploration credit designated for
elimination in the bill had not been used in over a decade.
Mr. Burnett responded in the affirmative.
2:19:30 PM
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment and to good time deductions."
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, SPONSOR, discussed the intent
of the bill. She announced that the bill dealt with the
period of pre-trial; before possible conviction and
sentencing. She explained that currently if an individual
served the time awaiting trial in jail and was convicted
credit was given for time served. The legislation would
grant credit for time served under electronic monitoring.
She read the following from page 1, beginning on line 10 of
the bill:
…if the person has not committed a criminal offense
while under electronic monitoring and the court
imposes substantial restrictions on the person's
freedom of movement and behavior while under the
electronic monitoring program, including requiring the
person to be confined to a residence…
Representative Wilson specified that the bill changed the
definition of residence from strictly a private home to a
halfway house, residential treatment center, or other type
of residential rehabilitative housing.
Representative Wilson continued to read from page 1, line
14 of the bill:
…except for a
(1) court appearance;
(2) meeting with counsel; or
(3) period during which the person is at a location
ordered by the court for the purposes of employment,
attending an educational or vocational training,
performing community volunteer work, or attending a
rehabilitative activity or medical appointment.
Representative Wilson communicated that very little
opportunity to receive treatment existed during the pre-
trial period and many individuals lost their jobs or homes.
She elaborated that the bill had no effect on a person
qualified for electronic monitoring. Conversely, HB 15
would not change the prohibition against allowing
electronic monitoring for sex offenders. She provided a
scenario regarding how the bill would work. An individual
charged with a crime would appear in court and be placed on
electronic monitoring and other conditions of pre-trial
release. If subsequently convicted, and the individual was
compliant during pre-trial credit would be received for
time served. She believed that the scenario was preferable
over placing the individual in jail pre-trial without
receiving rehabilitative treatment or services.
2:19:43 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered whether one day served under
electronic monitoring was worth one day's credit against
incarceration. Representative Wilson confirmed that the
credit was a 1 to 1 ratio.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how a person who was technically not
guilty during the pre-trial time but was subsequently found
guilty could legally be granted the time served before
sentencing.
Representative Wilson responded that the system already
gave credit against time served before sentencing. When a
person was charged with a crime and was jailed during pre-
trial, the individual was collecting time served against
sentencing time. She shared that HB 15, under strict
conditions metered out by judge, would allow counseling,
employment, treatment, etc. during the pre-trial time under
electronic monitoring and receive credit for it if
sentenced. She opined that doing something constructive
like counseling or employment was preferable over
languishing in jail at much higher costs to the state. She
reiterated that the bill allowed for pre-trial electronic
monitoring under very strict conditions and that currently
electronic monitoring was only permitted post sentencing.
2:26:24 PM
Representative Gara commented that the language in the bill
mattered. He expressed concern over the words "[while under
electronic monitoring and the court imposes] substantial
restrictions on the person's freedom." He wondered what the
definition of "substantial restrictions" was. He suggested
that an individual who acted exemplary in carrying out his
pre-trial conditions under electronic monitoring but was
"just short of substantial restrictions" could be denied
credit for pre-trial time served. He wondered what would
happen to the person with "almost substantial
restrictions." He wondered why the language was included in
the bill.
Representative Wilson clarified that the court would
determine the substantial restrictions placed on the
individual; therefore, that the person would know exactly
what conditions to comply with during the pre-trial period.
She informed the committee that the Department of Law (DOL)
suggested the substantial restriction language.
Representative Gara stated that it was not "good enough for
him" that the language was inserted in the legislation
under the direction of DOL. He believed that the department
tended to be "harder" on defendants than other agencies. He
provided an example of a person living at home with an
ankle monitor working to get their GED, obtaining
employment, and abiding by other conditions imposed by the
court. He did not think that the scenario would meet the
definition of substantial restrictions. He wanted the
person under his scenario to receive credit for time served
while monitored.
Representative Wilson understood that a previous court case
set precedent that mandated substantial restrictions or the
"equivalent of being in jail."
Representative Gattis agreed with Representative Gara. She
thought that "people with bad behavior should be given the
opportunity to "rehabilitate;" if the person reoffended
then at least the opportunity was offered. She saw people
in her district who had "made a mistake and recognized
their mistake, but could not get out of the hole." She
claimed that the state was not providing the opportunity
for rehabilitation and inmates were merely "existing" in
prison at high financial costs to the state. She wanted the
system to help convicted "citizens" work their way into
becoming productive members of society and "move forward."
She believed that "sitting in jail was not the answer" nor
was replicating jail because the current system was
failing.
2:33:06 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the meaning of "substantial
restrictions on movement" and asked how the language was
interpreted. He inquired whether it was confined to what
was listed as allowable in HB 15 or whether the court could
impose other activities or restrictions. Representative
Wilson answered that the court system would decide what
restrictions on movement to impose within the provisions
listed in the bill.
Co-Chair Neuman observed that different judges imposed
different sentences for the same crime and "was not a fair
system." He wanted a clear definition of "substantial
restrictions." He suggested that the bill list what
substantial restrictions were as opposed to leaving the
definition open to interpretation.
Representative Wilson pointed out the difficulty in
achieving consensus among the Department of Corrections
(DOC), public defenders, district attorneys, and the Court
System when crafting the legislation. She shared that the
bill was a compromise between the entities within the
confines of the court case precedent. She expressed concern
over the public's safety and thought that sufficient
restrictions were needed to safeguard the public. She
agreed that having the definition in writing would help but
wanted to wait and see how HB 15 would play out in the
courts, if adopted. She surmised that substantial
restrictions would act as a deterrent for the individual
under electronic monitoring while allowing the opportunity
for reform.
2:38:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated his concern about the
definition of substantial restrictions. He was also
concerned about court imposed restrictions that were not
criminal offenses i.e., restricting drinking or smoking
marijuana, and wondered how the bill was dealing with those
restrictions.
Representative Wilson referred to lines 11 through 12 on
page 1 and interpreted the language to mean that during the
period of electronic monitoring a person may not commit
another crime and receive credit for time served. She cited
that the definition of substantial restrictions was listed
on page 2 and that the court would impose definitive
restrictions around where and when the person was expected
to be at all times.
Representative Gara understood the bill to read that the
allowances listed on page two: court appearances,
employment, rehabilitative activity, etc., were exceptions
to court restrictions.
2:43:26 PM
Representative Gara interpreted the legislation to mean
that the items listed on page 2 were exempted from
substantial restrictions and wanted to clarify the
interpretation for the committee.
Representative Wilson responded that she understood the
bill to read that unless the monitored person was at one of
the locations listed in the bill they would be restricted
to their place of residence.
Representative Gara opined that it was "mind boggling" that
someone who committed a minor crime would be denied credit
for time served if they were not placed under substantial
restriction than a person who committed a more serious
crime and remained in jail during pretrial and received
credit for time served. He added that he was certain the
list on page two contained exemptions and not restrictions.
Representative Wilson agreed that the term "substantial"
made the bill "more difficult to understand." She restated
that the term was necessary due to a court case the state
lost that determined that in order to allow pretrial
monitoring the restrictions had to be equivalent to being
in jail. The bill attempted to define what that equivalent
meant.
Vice-Chair Saddler requested to hear from DOL or DOC to
answer the question whether electronic monitoring was more
restrictive than confinement in jail presentencing whether
it was known how many people were eligible for monitoring
and took advantage of the opportunity.
REMOND HENDERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, reported that 457 people were on electronic
monitoring post-sentencing and that currently 1875 people
were in pre-trial status. He did not know how many of the
pre-trial individuals would be eligible for electronic
monitoring. He detailed that the department's goal was to
move more post-trial convicts onto monitoring when
possible.
Representative Wilson interjected that most of the
monitoring was performed by private entities.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many people post-conviction
were eligible for electronic monitoring and accept it
versus those that choose incarceration. He wondered whether
convicts viewed electronic monitoring as an easier sentence
than confinement.
2:49:48 PM
CARRIE BELDEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), declared
that she could not answer the question because it was a
matter of the convict's personal preference and capability
to accept electronic monitoring.
Representative Wilson indicated that it was not possible to
compare post-trial to pre-trial. She explained that if a
person in jail during pre-trial was convicted the credit
they received for time served was called "good time" versus
a person choosing electronic monitoring who would receive
day for day credit. Presently, more incentive existed to
remain in jail post-conviction than choose electronic
monitoring. She stated that her bill was attempting to
"even out" the incongruity.
Representative Gara asked whether the bill was limited to
individuals prior to conviction and sentencing or also
applied to offenders post-sentencing.
KACI SCHROEDER, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
responded that the legislation applied to pre-trial
sentencing.
Representative Gara asked whether Section 1 and Section 2
of HB 15 only applied to pretrial sentencing. Ms. Schroeder
responded in the affirmative. She added that a post-trial
offender was under the jurisdiction of DOC. The department
decided on convicts placements, which could include
electronic monitoring with restrictions.
2:54:22 PM
Representative Gara described a scenario where an
individual was sentenced pre-trial with an ankle monitor
and conditions that fell short of substantial restrictions
on freedom of movement. He questioned why the individual
would not receive credit for time served.
Ms. Schroeder indicated that the language, "substantial
restrictions on the person's freedom of movement and
behavior" was derived directly from case law. Case law
defined criteria "like incarceration" and the judge would
be familiar with the criteria. She cited AS.12.55.027,
which was not included in the bill that referred to
residential treatment and delineated the restrictions
necessary to qualify for jail credit.
Representative Gara asked whether including or removing
"substantial" was a policy call for the legislature.
Representative Wilson understood that if substantial
restrictions was removed the law would be challenged in
court. She reiterated that the bill was shaped through
compromise between the four entities. She emphasized that
"substantial restrictions" was a big issue in drafting the
HB 15. She wanted the legislation to be effective and
utilized.
Representative Gara directed the question to DOL and
wondered whether removing substantial restrictions would
render the policy invalid.
Ms. Schroeder explained that pre-trial jail credit was
"very well fleshed out in the court system." Additionally,
many cases support disallowance of time served under pre-
trail electronic monitoring. However, the bill was
countering the precedent by stating that electronic
monitoring could be the equivalent to jail under the
conditions specified in the bill. The language in HB 15
reflected a policy shift and nothing prohibited the
legislature from making another policy call, which
eventually would be considered in the courts.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Nancy Meade to testify clarifying
the judge's role in pre-trial sentencing.
2:58:52 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
explained that judges refrain from ordering electronic
monitoring "per se." Pre-trial defendants received specific
bail conditions; one condition required a third party
custodian. Therefore, some defendants cannot find a
suitable custodial guardian. Subsequently, the defendant
can hire a company that provided custodial guardianship via
an ankle monitor. She voiced that the defendant must
convince the judge the method was appropriate under the
bail conditions and the company must establish its
capability of responsible guardianship. She reported that
DOC was not involved in pre-trial monitoring. Upon the
judge's approval, an order specifying the defendant's
monitoring conditions was written by the judge, who was
placed on notice by the defendant that he would request
credit for time served under monitoring when sentenced.
Representative Gara asked whether substantial restrictions
must be imposed in order to receive credit for time served.
Ms. Meade thought that the substantial restriction language
was included specifically for receiving credit for time
spent in residential treatment. She related that the
court's position was that the legislature could create any
policy it wanted in regards to pre-trial time served and
electronic monitoring and the court would apply it.
3:03:17 PM
Representative Gara thought that a defendant who did not
have a drug and alcohol problem and was placed on pre-trial
electronic monitoring but was not subject to substantial
restrictions on his freedom of movement should gain credit
for time served. He asked for Ms. Meade's thoughts.
Ms. Meade responded that bill did exclude the person in the
described scenario and reiterated that the committee could
include any type of policy call it desired in regards to
the issue and the court would apply the law.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked what percentage of people placed
on electronic monitoring complied with the restrictions.
Ms. Meade replied that she did not have the exact statistic
but compliance was "quite high." She elaborated that the
defendant was paying a high fee for the monitoring service.
The electronic monitoring companies acted swiftly to file a
petition when a defendant transgressed and were trusted by
the courts.
Representative Wilson maintained that the bill was a change
in policy and reminded the committee that Alaska's prisons
were at "101 percent" capacity and she hoped the
legislation was a first step to stop the "revolving door"
of incarceration.
HB 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:07:31 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|