Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
05/06/2019 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB49 | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 6, 2019
9:01 a.m.
9:01:32 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:01 a.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
None
ALSO PRESENT
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; John
Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Grey Mitchell, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development;
Representative Lance Pruitt; Representative David Eastman;
Senator Lora Reinbold.
SUMMARY
HB 49 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE
CSHB 49(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
five "do pass" recommendations, five "amend"
recommendations, and one "no recommendation"
recommendation; and two new fiscal impact notes
from the Department of Administration, two new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Corrections, four new indeterminate notes from
the Department of Corrections, one new fiscal
impact note from the Alaska Judicial System, one
new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Public Safety, and with one previously published
zero impact note: FN1 (DHS); and one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN6 (LAW).
HB 68 LABOR STDRS/SAFETY; WORKER COMPENSATION
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the morning.
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."
9:01:32 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 31-
GH1029\E.3 (Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 27, line 10:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 27, line 13:
Delete "VA, or VIA controlled substance."
Insert "or VA[,OR VIA] controlled substance; or
(5) under circumstances not proscribed under AS
11.71.030(a)(3), 11.71.040(a)(3), 11.71.040(a)(4), or
11.71.060(a)(2), possesses any amount of a schedule
VIA controlled substance."
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Johnston explained that the amendment modernized
the states marijuana statutes.
Representative Josephson asked for further clarification of
the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson offered that the amendment brought the
statutes in line with the legalization initiative.
Co-Chair Johnston added that the language was offered and
vetted in the Senate.
Representative Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 31-
GH1029\E.4 (Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 32, line 29, following "convictions":
Insert "and any pending criminal charges"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon indicated that the amendment simply
added pending criminal charges to the factors a judge
could consider during the pretrial process. He recalled
testimony regarding a revolving door of arrest and release
and hoped the amendment would rectify the problem.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked the sponsor to explain how the
amendment would affect the judicial system and the role of
judges. Representative LeBon thought that adding the
language would offer a complete picture of any issues
that attributed to the process.
Co-Chair Foster withdrew his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
9:05:19 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 31-
GH1029\E.5 (Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 33, line 4:
Delete "and"
Page 33, line 6, following "community":
Insert "; and
(12) the pretrial risk assessment provided by the
commissioner of corrections."
Page 34, lines 6 - 7:
Delete all material.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment. He
communicated that the amendment would add the pretrial risk
assessment tool to the criteria that a judge shall consider
when determining conditions of release in subsection (c),
deleting the language that the court may consider the
pretrial risk assessment on page 34, lines 6 and 7. The
assessment tool was intended to help ensure that lowest
risk individuals were released pretrial to reduce the size
of the pretrial prison population and offered the court a
standardized approach when dealing with bail decisions. The
tool ensured that individuals were not unfairly
discriminated against.
9:06:08 AM
AT EASE
9:08:00 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson was trying to understand the
amendments impact. He deduced that the pretrial risk
assessment was given a shall standard that the court must
consider and deleted the "may" language. He understood that
currently, the pretrial risk assessment had a shall
standard and the present version of HB 49 authorized a
may posture. The amendment returned the shall.
Representative LeBon replied that the amendment added
criteria to the pretrial risk assessment tool that the
judge shall consider when determining conditions of
release. He ascertained that reliance on the tool
contributed to the revolving door because the scoring
system failed to consider the right factors like drug and
alcohol use and recent arrests. He judged that someone who
had been arrested could be released quickly because the
prior arrest would not be considered in the current scoring
system. He hoped the amendment would end the revolving door
and preempt pretrial release when necessary.
Vice-Chair Ortiz pointed out that the language stated,
shall consider versus shall adopt.
Co-Chair Wilson interjected that the risk assessment tool
was a work in progress. She explained that the amendments
use of shall consider left the ultimate discretion up to
the judge.
Representative Carpenter inquired about the use of "shall
consider." He wanted to understand the difference between
may consider and shall consider and the impact of the
word consider. Representative LeBon thought that shall
acted as a must and may left it open to consideration.
Representative Carpenter asked what resulted with the use
of the word consider.
Co-Chair Wilson interjected that the word was sending a
message to the courts regarding the legislatures wishes
but how it was interpreted was up to the courts. She was
unsure how to legislate the definition.
Representative LeBon voiced that he wanted to tighten up
the statute and expand the consideration for pretrial
factors to include prior or out of state records.
9:12:56 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard referenced prior committee
discussion regarding returning discretion back to the
judges and thought that the pretrial risk assessment was
part of the correlation to provide discretion. She
thought that may provided the discretion. She asked if
Representative LeBon would allow a separate amendment to
change from shall to may.
Co-Chair Wilson requested to hear from the Court System.
9:13:58 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, answered
that the existing statute on page 32, beginning on line 22
included all the factors that the court shall consider when
deciding whether a person could be released. She
communicated that the court currently did consider all the
factors. She furthered that the process dictated that the
attorneys on both sides would present information to the
judge since the statute mandated consideration of the
factors. She explained that the amendment eliminated the
existing provision that the risk assessment was optional
and would include the risk assessment score as one of the
factors for consideration. Due to the provision in the
current committee substitute (CS), the court was no longer
bound by the risk assessment tool.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard deduced that the amendment
was unnecessary. She thought that discretion was already
available in the bill. She asked for comment. Ms. Mead
cited page 34, lines 6 and 7, subsection (f) and related
that without the amendment subsection (f) would remain in
the bill. She detailed that the provision offered the
choice to the court of whether to consider the pretrial
risk assessment by using the word may. The court was not
bound by the assessment and could ignore it. The amendment
did not bind the court, but the court did have to consider
the risk assessment score.
9:16:40 AM
Representative Knopp stated that because of the shall
consider language mandating the courts to employ the tool,
he wondered whether a delay in receiving the tool was an
issue. He referenced prior testimony regarding delays in
receiving the risk assessment. Ms. Mead disclosed that the
Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED) had an excellent
track record of providing the risk assessment to the courts
for arraignments in a timely manner. She was unaware of any
delays. Representative Knopp had recalled testimony in
recent days that sometimes the tool was not readily
available but was unsure who the testifier was.
Co-Chair Wilson reminded the committee that the time period
was changed in the CS from the 24 hour period to up to 48
hours [the amount of time a person could be held in jail
after arrest]. She maintained that the change should
address the concern.
Vice-Chair Johnston remembered that two risk assessment
tools were in use: pretrial and one used by the Department
of Corrections (DOC). She recalled that the committees
concern was related to how to retain the data from the risk
assessment tool to make the tool more relevant. She
wondered whether the amendment was a way to build in the
data in order to improve the tool. Ms. Mead agreed that
with the CS providing that the court may consider the
assessment, the data pertaining to pretrial release
relative to the assessment would be lost. She judged that
the use of the word shall in the amendment ensured that
the tool was considered, and the effect could be
quantified.
Representative Merrick spoke in strong opposition to the
amendment. She wanted the elimination the risk assessment
tool. She announced that returning to shall was
unacceptable.
Representative LeBon provided wrap up on the amendment. He
emphasized that the risk assessment tool would be added to
the list of factors to be considered balanced against other
factors utilizing the professional expertise of the judge.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Knopp, LeBon, Johnston, Foster, Wilson
OPPOSED: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter,
Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
9:21:22 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 31-
GH1029\E.6 (Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 5 3, following line 21:
2 Insert a new subsection to read:
"(k) In establishing the program under U) of this
section, the commissioner shall approve a risk
assessment instrument that is objective, standardized,
and developed based on analysis of empirical data and
risk factors relevant to pretrial failure, that
evaluates the likelihood of an offender's failure to
appear in court and the likelihood of an offender's
rearrest during the pretrial period, and that is
validated on the state's pretrial population. The
commissioner shall periodically reassess the risk
assessment instrument for its effectiveness in
determining the likelihood of an offender's failure to
appear in court or rearrest during the pretrial
period."
Representative Sullivan-Leonard and Co-Chair Foster
OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon stated that HB 49 proposed the
elimination of the PED and integrated the divisions duties
within probation and parole. He delineated that the
provision added the unintended consequence by deleting the
language in AS 33.07.020. The language specified the design
criteria for the pretrial risk assessment tool and required
that the criteria was objective, standardized, and
developed based on analysis of data and risk factors
relevant to pretrial failure. The amendment carried over
the original language regarding the objective and empirical
design of the tool. In addition, the amendment required
that the commissioner reassess the tools effectiveness
periodically. The provision ensured that data would still
be collected regarding the effectiveness of the pretrial
tool and enable the tool to become more predictive and
reliable for judges when engaging in bail decisions. He
asked for the committees support.
9:22:37 AM
AT EASE
9:24:26 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson stated his understanding of the
amendment. He was trying to locate the language in Title
33.
9:25:12 AM
AT EASE
9:25:33 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson asked to hear from the Department of Law.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, directed members to AS 33.07.020 subsection (5) that
contained the amendments language.
9:26:05 AM
AT EASE
9:31:52 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson provided a comment about the amendment.
She maintained that the amendment was merely attempting to
build a risk assessment instrument that was objective,
standardized, and developed based on analysis of empirical
data and risk factors. She read the amendment [included
above]. She emphasized the commissioners requirement to
reevaluate the tool for effectiveness in determining the
likelihood of an offender's failure to appear in court or
rearrest during the pretrial period. She pointed to
testimony regarding pretrial releases where the individual
reoffended. She noted that updated data regarding the tool
was due in June 2019. The amendment validated the
legislatures concern regarding the issues importance. She
supported the amendment.
9:33:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
[Note: Representative Sullivan-Leonard requested a
reconsideration of Amendment 4 at 9:53 a.m. The amendment
was voted on and adopted (7/4).]
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 31-
GH1029\E.7 (Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 36, lines 13 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) has completed at least
(A) two years on probation if the person was convicted
of a class A or class B felony that is not a crime
under (5) of this subsection; or (B) 18 months on
probation if the person was convicted of a crime that
is not a crime
(i) under (a) of this paragraph; or
(ii) under (5) of this subsection;
(2) has completed all treatment programs required as a
condition of probation;
(3) [HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF
PROBATION BY THE COURT FOR THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN (1)
OF THIS SUBSECTION;
[(4)] is currently in compliance with all conditions
of probation for all of the cases for which the person
is on probation; and
(4)[(5)] has not been convicted of an unclassified
felony offense, a sexual felony as defined in AS
12.55.185, or a crime involving domestic violence as
defined in AS 18.66.990."
Page 54, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "consider recommending [RECOMMEND]"
Insert "recommend"
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) is currently in compliance with all conditions of
parole for all of the cases for which the person is on
parole and has not been found in violation of
conditions of parole by the board for at least one
year; and"
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon immediately offered a conceptual
amendment to correct errors.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 5. He cited page 1, line 5 and moved to change
5 to 4, on page 1, line 8 change the lowercase a to a
capital A, and on page 1, line 9, change the 5 to 4.
In addition, he cited page 1, lines 21 through 23 that
deleted all material. He reported that the changes
corrected a drafting error. He delineated that paragraph 5
was deleted; hence the change to 4 and the lowercase a
would indicate a reference to a subsection whereas; the
reference should refer to capital A identifying a
subparagraph indicating the qualifying crimes.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson requested that Representative
LeBon repeat the amendment. Representative LeBon reviewed
the amendment.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson asked for an at ease.
9:36:54 AM
AT EASE
9:37:16 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon reviewed Amendment 5. He indicated
that the amendment offered a review period for the
recommendation of early termination of parole and
probation. He elaborated that SB 91-Omnibus Crim Law &
Procedure; Corrections [CHAPTER 36 SLA 16 - 07/11/2016]
mandated early termination of parole and probation if a
person had been on parole for at least one year and
probation for at least two years, completed a treatment
program, and had not been in violation of conditions of the
probation or parole. The result of the statute removed the
professional judgement of probation or parole officers and
forced them to recommend early termination even if the
offender required additional supervision. The current CS
corrected the issue by changing shall to may allowing
the probation or parole officer to exercise their
professional judgement when determining early termination.
He summarized that the amendment retained the language that
the officers may consider recommending early termination
but included the current statutory language that in order
to be considered for early termination, the offender must
complete 18 months of probation or two years, if convicted
of a Class A or B felony (non-domestic violence, non
sexual) and one year of parole.
9:38:59 AM
AT EASE
9:42:11 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson understood that members needed time, but
she wanted any questions or answers discussed during an
ease on the record.
Representative Josephson requested to hear from Mr.
Skidmore.
Representative Josephson reviewed his understanding of the
amendment. He surmised that the goal was to keep the
discretion with the probation and parole officer regarding
early termination of probation and parole while retaining
the language that established timelines for compliance with
conditions of probation and parole. He asked whether he was
correct.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the amendment left in place
"may" versus "shall" on page 36, line 11, which made the
provision a mandate and not a recommendation. The amendment
would include sideboards on the recommendation allowing a
probation officer to make a recommendation only if the
person had completed 2 years of probation if convicted of a
Class A or B felony and 18 months if the individual was
convicted of a crime that was neither a Class A or B
felony. The amendment included an addition of the timeframe
and was more restrictive than the prior provision in terms
of when an early release recommendation was possible.
Representative Josephson wondered whether the timelines
existed prior to SB 91. Mr. Skidmore would have to look at
the statute as written prior to SB 91. The bill reversed
the statute from SB 91.
9:46:28 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked Representative Josephson to stick to
discussions regarding the amendment and not comparisons to
laws prior to SB 91.
Representative Josephson believed he had been speaking to
the amendment.
Representative Knopp surmised that without the amendment, a
probation officer may recommend to the court that the
probationary period be terminated and with the amendment,
the same provision applied but the defendant had to
complete conditions set to a timeline before early release
could be considered. He concluded that the amendment
prohibited early release unless certain conditions were
met. He asked whether he was correct. Mr. Skidmore replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Merrick pointed to page 54, lines 16 and 17
of the bill. She asked about the ramifications of the
change.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Representative LeBon for
clarification.
Representative LeBon replied that on page 54, lines 16 and
17 of the amendment deleted the word recommend and the
words consider recommending were added.
9:49:16 AM
AT EASE
9:50:18 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon replied that the lines cited on page
54 would not be deleted.
Co-Chair Wilson read the subsection as follows:
(7) upon determining that a probationer under the
supervision of the officer meets the requirements of
AS 12.55.090(g), consider recommending [RECOMMEND] to
the court [AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE] that probation be
terminated, and the probationer be discharged from
probation;
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the language reflected
Representative LeBons intent. Representative LeBon
responded in the affirmative.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard pointed out that the
language in Amendment 5 should be removed.
Representative Knopp answered that the language had been
deleted in the conceptual amendment and did not change the
language on page 54 of the CS. Co-Chair Wilson agreed with
Representative Knopps assessment.
9:51:38 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 5 as
amended.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon provided closing comments on the
amendment. He reiterated his previous statements regarding
the amendment. He added that the early termination program
provided an incentive for the probationer or parolee under
the given timeframe but was balanced by the professional
judgement of the probation and parole officers.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Wilson,
Foster
OPPOSED: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED as AMENDED.
[Note: Representative Tilton requested a reconsideration of
Amendment 5 at 11:00 a.m. The amendment was adopted
unanimously.]
9:53:04 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard requested reconsideration
for her vote on Amendment 4.
There being NO OBJECTION, a new vote was called for
Amendment 4.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Foster,
Wilson
OPPOSED: Merrick, Carpenter, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 31-GH1029\E.8
(Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) [note: due to length of amendment it
is not included here - see copy on file for details].
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the amendment was a response
to concerns regarding the post release of inmates. The
amendment required that the management plan [reentry plan]
for each prisoner begin at least 90 days before release on
furlough, probation, or parole. The amendment included a
provision that DOC coordinate with community reentry
coalitions or other providers of reentry services if
available. She read from page 4 of Amendment 6, lines 3
through 12:
(12) provide to the legislature, by electronic means,
by January 10 preceding the first regular session of
each legislature, a report summarizing the findings
and results of the program established under (7) of
this subsection; the report must include:
(A) the number of prisoners who were provided with
written case plans under (8) of this subsection;
(B) the number of written case plans under (8) of this
subsection initiated within the preceding year; and
(C) the number of written case plans under (8) of this
subsection that were updated in the preceding year."
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that she had visited Lemon Creek
Correctional Center [Juneau] and spoke with many inmates
within 18 months of their release and none of them were
aware of a reentry plan. She furthered that the fiscal note
for the provision was zero.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED.
9:56:32 AM
AT EASE
9:59:11 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson restated her previous explanation of the
amendment. She read from the amendment [page 2, lines 7
through 8]:
(7) establish a program to conduct assessments of the
risks and needs of offenders sentenced to serve a term
of incarceration of 90 (30] days or more
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that the amendment required 90
days after an individual had been sentenced versus 30 days.
In addition, DOC was required to provide the case plan to
the prisoner within 90 days after sentencing.
Representative Carpenter remarked that the amendment was
substantial. He requested a 30 minute at ease for further
discussion. Co-Chair Wilson denied the request but offered
a few more minutes.
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He
believed in the benefits of reentry programs.
10:01:07 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon,
Merrick, Ortiz, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 31-GH1029\E.9
(Radford, 5/5/19) [note: due to length of amendment it is
not included here - see copy on file for details].
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the amendment related to the
collection and testing of rape kits and was a technical
fix. The provisions were from a bill [HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT
EXAMINATION KITS] that was previously heard in committee.
She relayed that the original bill excluded provisions
regarding testing the kits. She emphasized the importance
of testing the kits, which included provisions regarding
the victim's ability to opt out of testing. She did not
want the backlog of testing to continue. The amendment
clarified the legislatures intent regarding the kits.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. He wanted more time to
consider the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the amendment pertained to a
past bill HB 20 and had been previously discussed.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster,
Wilson
OPPOSED: Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 7 was ADOPTED. [Note: Representative Merrick
requested a reconsideration of Amendment 7 at 11:11 a.m.
The amendment was adopted unanimously.]
Representative Sullivan-Leonard and Representative
Carpenter requested an at ease.
10:03:59 AM
AT EASE
10:06:23 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8, 31-
GH1029\E.18 (Wallace/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 35, line 1:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 35, line 2, following "AS 11.46.400":
Insert"; or
(7) a theft offense under AS 11.46.100"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained the amendment that would
add theft to a list of offenses that would restrict credit
for pretrial confinement.
Co-Chair Wilson requested to hear from Mr. Skidmore.
Mr. Skidmore answered that AS 11.46.100 included the
definition of theft and was not specific to the types of
theft crimes.
Representative Knopp asked about including the definition
of theft. He surmised that the definition did not specify
the type of offense and classification of crime. He deduced
that if the amendment passed the details of the offense
would not be known to the judge when restricting credit.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed the definition of theft in AS
11.46.100. He delineated that the statute referenced the
crimes found throughout the chapter on theft and identified
the specific statutes: AS 11.46.160, AS 11.46.180, AS
11.46.190, AS 11.46.200, AS 11.46.210. He cited the
following:
(2) the person commits theft of lost or mislaid
property under AS 11.46.160;
(3) the person commits theft by deception under
AS 11.46.180;
(4) the person commits theft by receiving under
AS 11.46.190;
Mr. Skidmore elaborated that none of the theft categories
included the value of the property. He was uncertain how
the courts would interpret the amendment that failed to
specify which theft crimes a judge could revoke pretrial
electronic monitoring (EM) credit. The other subsections of
statute in HB 49 referenced the specific crime and the
elements associated with it.
10:09:25 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 8. He moved to delete the
amendment and insert only vehicle theft in the first degree
AS .11.46.360.
Representative Carpenter requested an at ease.
10:10:24 AM
AT EASE
10:11:30 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to withdraw Conceptual
Amendment 1.
Representative Knopp OJBECTED to Amendment 8.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the amendment.
He surmised that currently the crimes that restricted
pretrial confinement credit were serious. He listed the
crimes: Felony crime against a person; crimes involving
domestic violence and sexual offenses; delivery of
controlled substances; and burglary and arson in the first
degree. He believed that the public was being victimized by
theft and was left with the message that theft was not
taken seriously. He wanted all forms of theft to be
included in the list of crimes restricting pretrial credit.
He believed that the amendment mirrored the relief the
public demanded.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Merrick, Tilton, Sullivan-Leonard, Carpenter,
Johnston, Wilson
OPPOSED: LeBon, Ortiz, Josephson, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
10:14:00 AM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9, 31-
GH1029\E.19 (Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 35, line 1:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 35, line 2, following "AS 11.46.400":
Insert"; or
(7) vehicle theft under AS 11.46.360 or 11.46.365"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained that Amendment 9 was the
same as Amendment 8 but was specific to vehicle theft.
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that all forms of theft were
added under the previous amendment. He thought that
included vehicle theft. Representative Carpenter replied
that vehicle theft was listed separately from the other
theft statutes.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard spoke in support of the
amendment. She remarked that vehicle theft comprised the
highest rate of crime in her district.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 9 was ADOPTED.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10, 31-
GH1029\E.20 (Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 34, line 31:
Delete "to a person under 19 years of age"
Insert "[TO A PERSON UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE]"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained that the amendment would
remove the age restriction, under 19 years of age from
statutes pertaining to the delivery of a controlled
substance and included the provision on the list of
pretrial credit restrictions. He believed that age was not
a factor that should be considered.
10:16:25 AM
AT EASE
10:18:32 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson invited Representative Carpenter to further
clarify the amendment.
Representative Carpenter clarified that the amendment only
applied to electronic monitoring and not to pretrial
confinement.
Representative Josephson commented that certain offenses
might be captured that was undesirable such as marijuana,
which was legal.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 10 was ADOPTED.
10:20:11 AM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11, 31-GH1029\E.22
(Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 63, line 18, following "l l.71.030(a)(8)":
Insert", 11.71.030(c), 11.7I.030(e), 11.71.040(a)(11)"
Vice-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson requested to hear from the Department of
Law (DOL). She relayed that the amendment contained
corrections identified by DOL.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed the amendment. He explained that the
amendment was a cleanup to the repealer section, which
necessitated the repeal of three additional subsections. He
identified AS Sec. 11.71.030.(E) and elucidated that the
statute referred to precursors for methamphetamines for
distribution or manufacture that were reduced to a lower
level and the CS returned them to a higher crime. Without
the repealer, the provisions would be duplicated in statute
at two levels of crime.
Vice-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED. She asked for
additional clarity.
Mr. Skidmore restated his explanation and emphasized that
the repealer related to the lower level of crime. He
referred to page 63, line 18 of the CS that contained the
repeler. He noted that out of the three statutes listed,
the first two related to methamphetamines and the third
pertained to distribution by weight categories. He
clarified that the repealer accomplished the same concept
for weight categories and eliminated them completely. He
indicated that the repealers accomplished the completion of
a return to pre-SB 91 laws for drug distribution or
dealing.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard MAINTAINED her OJBECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Knopp, LeBon, Merrick, Ortiz, Sullivan-Leonard,
Tilton, Carpenter, Josephson, Johnston, Wilson, Foster
OPPOSED: None
The MOTION PASSED (11/0). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 11 was ADOPTED.
10:24:44 AM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12, 31-GH1029\E.24
(Radford, 5/5/19) [note: due to length of amendment it is
not included here - see copy on file for details].
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that the amendment had been brought
to her by the Department of Law.
Mr. Skidmore explained the amendment. He elucidated that
the first page corresponded to adjusted section numbers.
Beginning on page 2, the amendment changed the language
regarding the availability and use of third-party
custodians during pretrial. Currently, third-party
custodians were only available in a community where a
pretrial enforcement officer was not available. The
amendment included third-party custodians to the list of
options the court could consider for pretrial release
regardless of whether a pretrial enforcement officer was
available to the community. He emphasized that the
provision was in the governors bill and was essential,
allowing the courts to have as many tools as possible to
change the bail system.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 12 was ADOPTED.
10:26:25 AM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13, 31-GH1029\E.25
(Marx/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 27, line 12, following "11.71.040(a)(4),":
Insert "11.71.040(a)(12),"
Vice-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that the amendment had been brought
forward by the Department of Law.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the amendment would insert an
additional reference to a drug statute into another
proposed drug statute. The action conformed to changes
proposed to drug laws and without the change it was
impossible to amend the statute. The omission was due to a
drafting error.
Vice-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 13 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14, 31-GH1029\E.26
(Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 40, line 22, following "AS 11.41.455(c)(l),":
Insert "indecent viewing or production of a picture
under AS 11.61.123(0(1),"
Page 41, line 4, following "degree,":
Insert "sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree
under AS 11.41.438(c),"
Page 41, line 5, following "degree,":
Insert "indecent viewing or production of a picture
under AS 11.61.123(0(2),"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the amendment contained the
specific references to statutes pertaining to indecent
viewing. The amendment was necessary to correct a drafting
error and the sentences could not be changed without it.
Co-Chair Wilson noted that the amendment had been brought
forward by the administration.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 14 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15, 31-GH1029\E.27
(Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 54, line 31, following "conditions":
Insert "when a petition to revoke probation is filed"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Wilson asked to hear from Mr. Skidmore and
indicated the amendment was offered on the administrations
behalf.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed the amendment. He voiced that the
purpose of the amendment clarified when the report that was
associated with a revocation of probation was due. The
amendment was necessary to correct a drafting error.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 15 was ADOPTED.
10:30:24 AM
AT EASE
10:32:28 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16, 31-
GH1029\E.12 (Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 23, line 15:
Delete "schedule IV A, VA, or VIA"
Insert "schedule IV A or VA (IV A, VA, OR VIA]"
Page 26, line 20:
Delete "or"
Page 26, line 26, following "paragraph":
Insert"; or
(13) violates AS 11.71.050(a)(l) and, within the
preceding five years, has been convicted of a crime
under
(A) this paragraph; or
{B) a law or ordinance of this or another jurisdiction
with elements similar to a crime under AS
11.71.050(a)(l)."
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He shared
that he had discovered many issues of concern related to
marijuana in the bill. He maintained that the amendment
returned the current proposed felony to a misdemeanor act.
The act provided pertained to anyone with any amount
marijuana who was 18 years old or older and at least three
years younger than the person delivering the substance. He
cited page 23, line 15 of the CS and indicated that it was
currently a Class B felony to share any amount of a
scheduled 6A controlled substance or marijuana. He
exemplified that if a 21 year old offered a drag of
marijuana off a pipe or joint to an 18 year old, the act
was a class B felony for the older individual. He believed
that the penalty was drastic. The amendment turned the
offense into a misdemeanor and paralleled the Title 4
statutes on providing alcohol to a minor. The provision
made it a Class C felony for a second offense. The
amendment reduced the penalties and was aligned with other
law.
Co-Chair Wilson asked to hear from the Department of Law.
She asked whether the bill was recriminalizing marijuana.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the negative.
10:34:55 AM
AT EASE
10:35:30 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Skidmore pointed to page 23, line 15 of the CS. The
subsection on line 15 cited "schedule IV A, VA, or VIA"
specifying the delivery of a controlled substance to a
person under the age of 19 years of age who is at least
three years younger than the person delivering the
substance. He commented that the statute did not
recriminalize marijuana and verified that marijuana was
legal over the age of 19 regarding possession and clarified
that the crime applied to providing marijuana to an
underaged individual. He understood that the amendment
eliminated the age requirement and was condoning providing
marijuana for someone underage.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if what Mr. Skidmore had stated was
Representative Josephsons intent.
Representative Josephson replied, not exactly. He
clarified that it would still be illegal to provide anyone
a schedule VI A controlled substance but eliminated
language that allowed for any amount of marijuana provided
to someone who was three years younger and under the age of
21 by an adult 21 or older to be considered a Class B
felony. He corrected Mr. Skidmores statement that 19 was
the legal age for marijuana possession; the age was 21. He
believed the penalty was extreme. He noted that the
amendment lessened the offense to a Class A misdemeanor
comparable to the Title 4 law of furnishing alcohol to a
minor.
10:38:33 AM
Representative Knopp felt that one ounce of marijuana was a
substantial amount. He asked for Representative Josephsons
thoughts. Representative Josephson answered that an ounce
was unacceptable and would be a Class A misdemeanor, which
was the current law. He wanted to eliminate the higher
penalty for a provision with a lesser amount of marijuana.
Co-Chair Wilson believed that the state's high schools were
dealing with the issue. She did not want to send the
message that it was okay to provide marijuana to minors.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that the sponsor was not
claiming offering marijuana to youth was acceptable. He
determined that the goal of the amendment was to change the
offense to the same as the delivery to alcohol. He
indicated that the facts were clear that alcohol had
greater negative impacts on the population versus
marijuana.
Co-Chair Wilson would be amenable to making changes to
alcohol laws as well.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that the amendment did not make it
legal to provide marijuana to underage individuals. A
higher level statute found on page 23, dealt with
misconduct involving controlled substances in the third
degree that was classified as a Class B felony. He reported
that it was a class B felony to provide marijuana to
someone under the age of 19. He agreed that 21 was the
legal age related to marijuana. He pointed to page 25, that
established the act of providing marijuana to another
person outside of the regulatory regime, which was a Class
C felony under misconduct involving a controlled substance
in the fourth degree. He pointed out that the two laws
related to the issue and noted that the current CS drew a
strong distinction between when it was legal or illegal to
provide marijuana to someone under the age of 19. The
amendment would eliminate the higher penalty for
distribution under the age of 19, which meant that any
distribution would be dealt with in the same manner
regardless of age.
10:42:36 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the system and how things were
prosecuted or not prosecuted. He asked whether there was
merit to changing the amendment from a felony to a
misdemeanor. Mr. Skidmore responded that he was present as
a representative of the administration. He had his own
personal views on marijuana that he could not speak to at
present. He observed that from a prosecutors standpoint
that the CS established a harsher penalty to someone
providing marijuana to persons under the age of 19 versus
selling marijuana outside of the regulatory scheme. He
could not comment on whether the amendment was a good or
bad idea.
Representative Merrick opposed the amendment. Her district
had been clear that it wanted to be tough on crime and
drugs. She did not support lessening the offense.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Merrick OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson provided wrap up on the amendment.
He reiterated that presently, the offense of providing even
one drag off a marijuana cigarette to someone aged 18 by a
21 year old was a Class B felony that equated to up to 10
years in jail and was comparable to punishment for sexual
assault. He believed the statute was extreme.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Ortiz, Josephson, Johnston, Foster
OPPOSED: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter,
Knopp, Wilson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 16 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 17, 31-
GH1029\E.10 (Marx/Radford, 5/5/19):
Page 64, line 4:
Delete "2011"
Insert "1981"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
disclosed that conservatives who had stated they were
protective of gun rights like the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and the administration wanted to dial
back the number of years information regarding involuntary
commitment or mental illness must be submitted to the
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
10:47:57 AM
Representative LeBon asked about the fiscal impact of the
amendment.
Representative Josephson replied that someone had informed
him that it was in the range of $150,000. He stated that
Ms. Mead had testified that the court system would require
two additional staff to comply with the statute. He
believed a federal grant would be forthcoming.
Co-Chair Wilson was uncomfortable with the amendment. She
shared that she chose the extended date. She was unaware of
any federal grant dollars and the fiscal note reflected
that. She had not heard from the NRA regarding the matter.
She was not supportive of placing the length of time in
statute.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked to hear from Ms.
Mead. She inquired whether there would be difficulty in
obtaining information back to 1985 or 1990. She noted that
the information existed, but it was on microfiche. Ms. Mead
replied that the reason the Chair chose 2011 was to align
with the date all the court's records subsequent to the
date were available electronically. The court could do the
electronic search with existing staff. However, for records
before 2011, the courts information was mixed, with some
information electronic and on CourtView and some not. Prior
to 2002, nothing was available electronically which would
mean reviewing paper files and microfiche. She estimated
that around 21,000 files could have a mental issue order.
She concurred that they would need additional staff to
perform the review.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the compiled data
would have to be put into the system under CourtView or
merely available to those seeking information. Ms. Mead
answered the court would provide information about the
individuals to DPS in order to upload it to their
databases and work with the federal database. The
individuals with mental issue adjudications would be
included in a database and ultimately be excluded from
purchasing a firearm.
10:52:29 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston heard from DPS that there could be a
great number of federal funds coming to the state for the
purpose under discussion. She asked whether the court
intended to compile records prior to 2011 if federal funds
were forthcoming. Ms. Mead answered that the availability
of federal funds was tentative and would not warrant
canceling a fiscal note. She elucidated that the
information desired was confidential by law. Therefore, if
the proposed 2011 law was adopted it would act as an
exception to the confidentiality law and the court system
will comply, but prior to that date the court would not
have the authority to do so. Vice-Chair Johnston asked
whether the 2011 date made the state compliant with federal
law. Ms. Mead answered she was uncertain what the federal
law was. She offered that it was illegal under federal law
for a person that had been mentally committed to purchase a
firearm. The federal government wanted the state to supply
the information to them. She was uncertain whether the 2011
date made the state compliant. Vice-Chair Johnston thought
the law was in response to the Virginia Tech [Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, commonly known
as Virginia Tech] shooting [April 16, 2007]. Ms. Mead was
uncertain why the federal government had passed the law.
10:54:58 AM
Representative Merrick supported the amendment. She thought
that if it meant that one persons life was saved, it was
irrelevant how difficult and time consuming it was to
compile the information.
Representative Carpenter pointed to the date of December
31, 2019 for completion of the data transfer. He wondered
if the completion date granted enough time to finish the
task if looking back to 1981. Ms. Mead answered in the
negative. She stated that the fiscal note specified it
would take one year. Representative Carpenter suggested
offering a conceptual amendment to change the completion
date if the 1981 date was adopted.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Ms. Mead how much more time the Court
System would need to compile the information from 1981. Ms.
Mead discerned that a completion date of December 31, 2020
was adequate.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 17. He moved to change the date
from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2020 on line 2 of
the amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 17 as
amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 17 was ADOPTED
as AMENDED.
10:57:46 AM
AT EASE
11:00:39 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Tilton requested a reconsideration on her
vote for Amendment 5.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
11:01:03 AM
AT EASE
11:02:18 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson explained that they would reconsider
Amendment 5.
Representative Josephson questioned the interpretation of
Amendment 5. He pointed to subsection 3, lines 12 through
14 of the amendment and noted that the language was being
deleted.
(3) [HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF
PROBATION BY THE COURT FOR THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN (I)
OF THIS SUBSECTION;
Representative Josephson interpreted the language in
subsection 3. He surmised that if the probationer or
parolee had violated conditions, a decision on early
termination would be delayed. He indicated that eliminating
the subsection left subsection 4 intact. He underlined
[subsection 4] lines 15 through 16 that stated:
4)] is currently in compliance with all conditions of
probation for all of the cases for which the person is
on probation; and
Representative Josephson interpreted that the two concepts
were different. He deduced that deleting the language in
subsection 3 was significant. He asked for Mr. Skidmores
point of view.
Co-Chair Wilson reminded Representative Josephson that the
action was a policy call and Mr. Skidmore could inform the
committee only on the effects of the amendment.
Mr. Skidmore responded that Amendment 5 deleted the current
provision in the bill on lines 13 through 22 and replaced
it with the amendment. He elaborated that Amendment 5,
lines 3 through 11 were the only provisions that were
different from the bill. The amendment would affect the CS
on page 36, lines 13 through 20; lines 3 through 11 of the
amendment would be added to the CS. He interpreted the
provision to mean that the offender had to serve 2 years of
probation for Class A or B felonies and at least 18 months
for other crimes that at the discretion of the probation
officer, could be eligible for early termination. He
determined that was the only significant change in the
proposal.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
11:06:26 AM
AT EASE
11:07:12 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18, 31-
GH1029\E.13 (Wallace/Radford, 5/5/19) (copy on file):
Page 42, line 31:
Delete "30 [10]"
Insert "IO"
Page 43, lines 2 - 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) 90 days if the conviction is for a violation of
(A) AS 11.61.116(c)(l) and the person is 21 years of
age or
older; [OR]
10 (B) AS 11.61.l20(a)(6) and the person is 21 years
of age or older; or
(C) AS 11.61.220(a)(4)(B) or (C); or"
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 18 to delete the top three lines
of the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the impact of the proposed
deletion.
Representative Josephson explained that the intent of the
amendment was to increase two types of Class B misdemeanors
to 90 day penalties and the top lines did not reflect his
intent.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that it was not the intent of the
sponsor to include lines 1 through 3.
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 18 was ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment as
amended. He reported that in SB 91, most of the Class B
misdemeanors were decreased from 90 days to 10 days except
for harassment in the second degree and sending an explicit
image of a minor. He delineated that the amendment added
bringing a gun to a courthouse. He alerted the committee
that the court system lacked an adequate security system in
single judge sites. He was alarmed about the policy
perception the state was taking. In addition, the amendment
included bringing a gun to a domestic violence shelter,
which he characterized as sacred places. He maintained
that if a person inadvertently forgot they had a concealed
weapon it would mitigate the offense. He felt that the
current situation could be construed as the state having
little concern about bringing a gun to a domestic violence
shelter. He shared that the amendment had been offered in
the House in the fall of 2017 and had failed 20-20. He
asked the committee to consider the serious nature of the
crimes.
Co-Chair Wilson asked members to be careful about stating
other's intent.
11:11:50 AM
Co-Chair Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 18 was ADOPTED as
AMENDED.
Representative Merrick asked for reconsideration on vote to
Amendment 7. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
11:15:17 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to REPORT CSHB 49(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes with the ability for Legislative
Legal Services to make technical and conforming changes.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson announced his support for the
bill.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Josephson, Johnston, LeBon, Ortiz,
Knopp, Tilton, Foster, Wilson
OPPOSED: Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
CSHB 49(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations, five "amend" recommendations, and
one "no recommendation" recommendation; and two new fiscal
impact notes from the Department of Administration, two new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of Corrections,
four new indeterminate notes from the Department of
Corrections, one new fiscal impact note from the Alaska
Judicial System, one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Public Safety, and with one previously
published zero impact note: FN1 (DHS); and one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN6 (LAW).
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the division of labor standards
and safety; relating to the division of workers'
compensation; establishing the division of workers'
safety and compensation; and providing for an
effective date."
11:17:04 AM
GREY MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, introduced
the bill. He explained that HB 68 would merge the Division
of Labor Standards and Safety with the Division of Workers'
Compensation as of July 1, 2019. The new division would be
called the Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation.
The merger would decrease costs and improve efficiencies.
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
11:17:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 a.m.