01/28/1998 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 1998
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting the imposition of state personal income taxation, state
ad valorem taxation on real property, or state retail sales
taxation without the approval of the voters of the state.
- FAILED TO MOVE HJR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act relating to a surcharge imposed for violations of state or
municipal law and to the Alaska police training fund."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 282
"An Act imposing a surcharge on fines imposed for misdemeanors,
infractions, and violations and authorizing disposition of
estimated receipts from that surcharge; and amending the purposes
for which grants may be made from the legal assistance and juvenile
justice grant fund in order to provide financial assistance for the
operation of youth courts."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MARTIN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/13/97 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/97 501 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1DNP 4NR
02/27/97 502 (H) DP: HODGINS; DNP: ELTON
02/27/97 502 (H) NR: JAMES, BERKOWITZ, DYSON, IVAN
02/27/97 502 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/27/97 502 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/16/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/28/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 261
SHORT TITLE: LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/24/97 1323 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/24/97 1323 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/28/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony on HJR 7.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor testimony on HB 261.
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4378
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 261.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 261.
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 261.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 261.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter and Berkowitz.
Representatives Croft, Rokeberg and James arrived at 1:06 p.m.,
1:10 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., respectively.
HJR 7 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
Number 0025
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business to be a
revisit of HJR 7, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska prohibiting the imposition of state personal
income taxation, state ad valorem taxation on real property, or
state retail sales taxation without the approval of the voters of
the state." He asked Representative Martin, sponsor, to present
the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HJR 7, stated that he
appreciated the committee revisiting this issue. He pointed out
that the amendments made last year pertain to some of the questions
that were brought up, especially regarding ad valorem. He said, "I
do not mind that as a committee substitute." He continued that the
question arose last year of what would be done in case of a crisis
of depleting oil and gas revenues. He noted that things have
changed since then, as oil companies have been saying that there
will not be a decline after 1999. He stated that this will protect
the revenue. He asserted that he would put more emphasis on the
Constitutional Budget Reserve(CBR), which is the rainy day account,
a cushion of currently $4 billion that receives approximately $400
million a year. He stated that the simple solution is to tax the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN declared that the legislature is seeing,
through permanent funds, that the public will buy the kind of
government that they want. Today the legislature receives more
revenues in permits and fees for various government programs and
services than it ever received in income tax. He explained that
the legislature needs to calculate that by the "all budget
category" which is now approaching $900 million. He said, "So the
people aren't paying for the services -- it's a matter that-- I
believe in going back to basics, especially when it comes to the
income of the voting people. Let them decide." He continued that
many states during the reparations in the 1910s and 1920s decided
to have a referendum and the initiative program. He said, "Now we
see in many state legislatures, that NCSL [National Conference of
State Legislatures], could provide the information for you where a
majority, a super majority, of the legislature are required before
any taxes are increased or proposed new taxes, which is good." He
stated that in most cases the people get the final say and do
approve the taxation when they are aware of what it is for. For
example, if they believe in education, they might not want an
endowment, but they would allow taxing for education.
Representative Martin stated that he had a lot of faith in the
public voting for taxes when they know what they are buying. He
continued that it is important to let the public decide on income
tax.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if it would be a fair statement
to say that because of the constitutional prohibition against
dedicated funds that the legislature would not be able to notify
the public precisely on what is being bought with the tax.
Number 0370
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that it would not be true because HJR
7 is a constitutional amendment. He stated that the public's
ability to vote on a tax would come after the freedom of voting on
a particular tax.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if HJR 7 changed the constitutional
prohibition against dedicated funds.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that it did not, except that it would
dedicate funds similar to what was done with the permanent fund and
the CBR, as those were constitutionally established dedicated
funds.
Number 0445
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that then each subsequent proposal
would require a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that it would not, because it is
being allowed by the constitution to approve that.
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that he did not think they were
communicating. He referred to Representative Martin's statement
that the public can be trusted because they will know what it is
that they are going to be taxed on. Representative Porter
suggested that unless each proposal that is put before the public
was a constitutional amendment or if this proposal amended the
constitution's prohibition against dedicated funds, the legislature
would not be able to notify the public as to what the tax is going
to do.
Number 0498
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said, "I don't see where any difference comes
from there from, then, what we did with the constitutional
amendment for the permanent fund, which said that 25 percent will
be royalties and severance. We did say that we're dedicating these
monies for the CBR to 'X purpose CBR'." He asserted that there are
four dedicated categories in the constitution that the public voted
on. He clarified that HJR 7 is allowing the legislature to tell
the public through the constitution that it is not just general
funds but general funds that we will allow for education or roads,
et cetera.
Number 0556
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether each one of those votes would
then be a constitutional amendment on a tax proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded, "We have already approved it, I
think sir, by saying yes, we approved education funds."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he disagreed.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that the public would not have to vote
on it again.
Number 0576
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he thought Representative Porter was
saying "that all this would do is require that any future tax
increase would be required a vote of the public and that vote would
have to come up as a constitutional amendment now to change to
allow a tax for a specific or all of those. I mean, you would have
to come back and reiterate like you were referring to the permanent
fund, there was a specific issue where money would go right there
and we are amending our constitution to provide for that." He said
that Representative Porter is saying that if this passes and in the
year 2004 an income tax needs to be established, it would have to
be on the ballot in order to adjust the constitution to provide for
that or else it would go to the permanent fund. He asked if that
was Representative Martin's understanding.
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that it was not his understanding.
He said, "The people voting on this tax here for education, we
agree that we are in the -- a real restraint here and the
legislature is going to put forth to the people a need for
education money. So we are going to tax ourselves and we ask the
people to join in this willingness to tax ourselves for education.
So then we would bring it before them." He continued that it could
be made a constitutional amendment if it was so desired but then it
would take two-thirds of the legislative body to do so each time.
Number 0692
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT stated that if the legislature wanted to
make the tax dedicated to education, there would have to be a
constitutional amendment to do so, because the tax could not be
dedicated to education any other way.
Number 0701
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that could be an interpretation.
He said, "Personally I would love it. If you passed this here and
then no other fund can go forward to the people like you are
saying, a super majority, that would end up with the super majority
before it goes to the people because that is what a constitutional
amendment is." He declared that most states have a super majority
before the vote goes to the public.
Number 0725
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it is true that over 25 of the states
require voter approval.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded yes and that information could be
obtained from NCSL.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it is in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that he could get the latest
information from the NCSL.
Number 0751
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that the process he was discussing
with Representative Porter seems like it leads to a number of
different dedicated taxes for different worthy goals. He explained
that it is his understanding, as he has been re-reading the minutes
of the constitutional convention, that the main reason for the
dedicated funds prohibition in the constitution was because we had
seen the history of many states having road funds that were rich
while the state was going bankrupt. He pointed out that by having
so many separate "pots," the legislature could not respond to any
eventuality. He asked Representative Martin if that is a risk that
he would forsee with HJR 7.
Number 0815
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that is very much a risk. He said,
"It is one of the things that I have been crying about, where we
have taken so much money out of the general funds now and make them
dedicated solutions. That is the reason why we end up today with
-- we say that we cut the budget, Democrats and Republicans, we cut
the budget, we cut the budget. And then we put it over here in
that separate category as dedicated." He stated that there is a
list of activities that were done that he believes were
unconstitutional under the scenario that Representatives Croft and
Porter pointed out. He reiterated that it has been done without
letting the public speak about it, under the guise of cutting the
budget and putting the funds in other categories.
Number 0877
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that he appreciated the fervor of
this philosophy but as one who represents an area victimized by the
tyranny of the majority in voting the rights of the minority away,
specifically the hillside police issue. He wondered if there has
been consideration as to what it would be like if this were to
occur and there were a tyranny of the minority especially if some
of the issues such as subsistence were to come to pass where the
majority and urban areas would refuse to vote a tax that would be
beneficial to rural areas.
Number 0927
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that there is always that problem
all over the nation, and it basically comes down to faith in
people. He stated that there are certain school districts
throughout the nation that have been hurt by the disparity in tax
dollars. He said, "Our court system helped that to a degree where
there would be equality, but then the people eventually voted on it
so that there would be equality within the tax structure of all
educating districts." He reiterated that it is a matter of having
faith in the people and letting them see what is happening.
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it was Representative Martin's view
that the initiative process could be not re-used to appropriate
money.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this would be an initiative process,
allowing a tax which is basically appropriating money.
Number 0975
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that it is approving an legislative
issue; we are depending on the legislature to solve the problem.
The legislature would present to the public the areas where the tax
is needed and then ask if the public would approve that tax in
exchange for the best roads in the nation. He offered that there
is evidence that the public would do that. He reiterated that it
boils down to having faith in the people. He questioned how there
could be so many dedicated funds already in existence without a
vote of people.
Number 1017
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he still did not get an answer to
his question as to whether having the public vote and approve a tax
is de facto appropriating of funds. This would be prohibited by
another constitutional provision.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "I suppose that would be how it was crafted
from ...?"
Number 1049
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that it could be. He stated that he
believed that taxes are the most important issue that the public
should be controlling. He pointed out that what is being said is
it will need to have two-thirds of the majority of both houses in
order to approve a tax measure, if this is going to be a
constitutional amendment.
Number 1077
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that what they are trying to say is
that there would need to be a two-thirds' majority vote, and
consequently a constitutional amendment, if the legislature wants
to tell the public that this tax will go a specific area as
dedicated funds. He continued that if that is not a consideration,
there would be no need to have the two-thirds' majority vote, just
a vote of the people on the tax, but then it could not be
dedicated. He asserted that if he was voting on a tax, he would
question whether the tax would go towards education if there was
not a requirement that it would.
Number 1126
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that is exactly it. He stated that
in the past a simple majority of the legislature who did not
represent the majority of the people would easily tax the majority
of the people. It is not as bad now as it was ten years ago.
Number 1162
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated that he is not sure if he
follows the thread of this conversation. He stated that he wished
Representative Bunde would allow the legislature to try the tyranny
of the minority. He asked Representative Martin if he was saying
that the budget cuts have been illusory and not factual.
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that he was; both Democratic and
Republican legislatures and administrations have done that. He
asked how many categories there are of dedicated funds.
Number 1220
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a comment by Representative Martin that
user fees now represent $900 million.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that it is close to $900 million. It
stems from hunting fees, (indiscernible -- coughing) fees, business
fees, university fees, et cetera.
Number 1247
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he understood what he was saying
but the choice of the term "dedicated funds" is misleading. He
explained that those are program receipts that have to be
appropriated every year by the legislature into those categories.
He asked if that was correct.
Number 1255
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that it was correct. It is a play on
words, as they used to always have to be in the general fund. For
example, student fees would first be put into the Department of
Public Safety, then into the Alaska Marine Highway and then into
the university.
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he understood what he was saying
but is opposed to the requirement to put oil to gas settlements
into the CBR; there is no choice, as that is where they go.
However, program receipts are off budget and it is very deceiving
as to where they go. But if the legislature wanted to, it could be
dumped into the general fund and not into those individual
accounts.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN clarified that they are called dedicated
funds.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that they are not.
AN UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER stated that they are designated funds.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated, "Same way, if a mayor owned 25
percent of royalties, 25 percent [where] constitutionally done but
we changed the law ourselves and put another 25 percent into the
permanent fund. That wasn't of the people's will, so you might say
that was unconstitutional. We didn't have the right to do that."
He added that it is a good thing we do that because the funds are
building up.
Number 1332
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he wanted to be clear that
Representative Martin considers user fees and surcharges to be a
form of tax.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that it is a voluntary form of tax.
He stated that as former Governor Hammond said, the reason for the
permanent fund is so people will be able to buy the services that
they need. For example, in 1985 there were $15 million coming in
as student fees, and even though the 15 percent forgiveness was
stopped, it is now $58 million that comes in as student fees.
However, the student fees do not go through the general fund, they
go straight to the university.
Number 1378
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked which version of the resolution the
committee is on. He questioned if if is version A because he has
a note from the prior session that the ad valorem tax on real
property had been a subject of discussion. He asked if that was in
or out, at this point.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that the committee did pass that but
unfortunately there is not the committee substitute to include
that. That section is out by an amendment that was approved last
year.
Number 1402
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the committee is into debate yet on
HJR 7.
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that is correct.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he agreed that we should let the
public buy the government that they need; however, they are buying
the government that they want. If it was a need-based government,
state workers could probably be reduced by a least half. He stated
that he did not plan to support this measure for the previously
mentioned concerns as well as for the reason that he has a great
deal of faith in the people and until it is in the form of
initiative he will wait for the people to speak.
Number 1459
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG stated that he wanted to clarify a
couple of things. He asked Representative Martin whether, under
his intent and interpretation of the language of this
constitutional amendment, if there was a state income tax which was
based on 16 percent of the federal tax and the legislature wanted
to change it to 18 percent, it would require a vote of the people.
Number 1499
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that is correct. Anytime time there
is an adjustment, it will have to go to the voters.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked: If the legislature wanted to repeal
a tax, would the legislature still have its power?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that he thought so and hoped that
was the case.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it seems like that might be the
case, but he is concerned that he is suggesting if the voters,
under this amendment, approve the tax, then anytime it would be
adjusted upwards, it would have to be by a vote of the people. He
asked if that was correct.
Number 1534
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that it is correct in regards to an
increase or a new tax. Right now Alaska does not need new sources
of revenue, and even if it did, he would still pursue HJR 7
because he likes the idea of people having freedom and control of
the purse strings.
Number 1569
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is not so sure that HJR 7 is
doing that. He suggested that the possibility of a ways and means
committee, for example, as part of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, which deals with the tax code of the state of
Alaska. Many times adjustments are made through the codes for
various reasons. He asked if Representative Martin was suggesting
that if there was something in place, they then could not take
action on codification on a particular de minimis tax regulation
without a vote of the people.
Number 1604
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied, "You are talking about regulation
but I am talking about any ...."
Number 1612
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that even a minor increase in some
part of the tax code would have the effect of raising taxes. He
suggested that every time there was a positive fiscal note, then
there would have to be a vote of the people.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that was correct. He said, "What you
call minor, 1 percent or half percent, a lot of areas allow that to
the public, half-percent increase because we -- environment. The
people in Colorado did that, [there] was less than 1 percent, and
it's helping environmental issues tremendously."
Number 1634
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the ad valorem tax and asked
what occurred.
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that it was passed. It was deleted. He
stated to Representative Martin that he is concerned that he may be
referring to other states where there is a projectable shortfall,
that something needs to be done about a certain tax. He stated
that his concern is that Alaska's economy is so linked to the price
of oil, as well as the amount of oil, that if there was a down turn
on oil in July, the legislature would not be able to increase the
tax for two years. He asked if that was a risk that Representative
Martin would fore see.
Number 1688
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN responded that it is a legitimate concern and
that is the reason why (he referred to a chart) this shows were
they would expect a decrease. He explained that they can tell, if
everything is the same and there are no new discoveries or
incentives, then there is no decrease. Since that time, the rainy
day account has been increased, which is going very well, receiving
$400 million a year. He stated that there is also the possibility
that people may agree to cap the permanent fund dividends. He
stated that his constituents had wholeheartedly supported his
efforts to cap the permanent fund at $1,000. He asserted that
there is going to be a limit on the amount of money that is given
away, as the dividends are going to either be taxed or capped. He
stated that the problem is that those people who work and have good
pensions are going to taxed, while other people will be demanding
more and more dividends.
Number 1760
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he certainly supports the concept of
getting the feel from the public on whether the state government
expenditures justify spending their own money, as opposed to the
fact that "a free ride exists." He stated that his concern is that
the legislature would have to go to the CBR, which has to be repaid
out of the following year's receipts. He stated that since 1994
on, there has been the attitude of capping the expenditures and
reducing the need for a tax. He asked if that would suffice to do
the same thing HJR 7 is trying to do. He asked: The people elect
those who allocate the spending, so then wouldn't that be
accomplishing the same thing?
Number 1811
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that it depends on one's philosophy.
It goes back to basics and who controls the purse strings. He
stated that the people may elect you to do the reapportioning of
the districts; the majority of elected people do not represent the
majority of the citizens. The majority of the citizens who earn
the money must protect themselves even against representative
government. He continued, saying that is the balance of HJR 7;
more than the simple majority of the legislators first must pass
any increase of taxes, and then a vote of the people is required,
equaling a real control over the purse strings.
Number 1875
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked how HJR 7 is different from the
(indisc.) referendum power that they would have anyway. He
questioned if this is just switching who starts it.
Number 1884
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said that is a good point. He explained that
is one of the things in this state that disappoints him in reading
the history of the constitution. He stated that it is called a
model constitution because it was developed by the American
Municipal League out of Chicago, and was just meant to be a
skeleton way of approaching the constitution. He said, "It was
called a model even before the delegation chose it and so we misuse
that word." He stated that a major aspect left out was the
initiative by the people and anything pertaining to appropriations
and referendums. Referendums were a very strong vehicle that the
people had over the legislature if they appropriated money for
something that they did not want. This is not allowed in Alaska.
He asserted that a signed referendum in Alaska is absolutely
worthless because of the time restraints in which the people must
gather signatures, introduce the bill and have it certified.
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the he did not know if referendums were
absolutely worthless; there could be disagreement on the
practicalities of them, but under the constitution if the tax was
passed the public could get signatures to put a repeal of that tax
on the ballot.
Number 1956
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that they could, and the constitution
may be changed to reflect that, but as it now stands, the public is
denied that right. Alaska is one of the few states in which the
public does not have any appropriation of taxes.
Number 1974
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recalled that last year it was decided to
not move HJR 7 out of committee. He asked what status it now has.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that it stays in committee unless there is
a ....
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the committee could vote on it
without any impediment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee could vote on it, if there
is a motion to move it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the chairman has any particular
notion on how he wants to handle the bill.
Number 2009
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I would move that this bill pass from
the judiciary committee."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "There has been a motion, I presume with
accompanying fiscal note and individual recommendations." He asked
if there was an objection.
Number 2019
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had an objection. He stated that
a constitutional amendment should be looked at as infinite law. He
said he is not sure he agrees with the resolution in its present
form. He commented that fundamentally the power to tax is the
principal element of government and one of the most important
constitutional rights that this legislature and this state have.
He continued that under Alaska's constitutional system, the
legislature is relatively weak vis- -vis the executive branch of
government. He expressed reluctance to give this power to the
people. Alaska has a unique situation, as there are enormous
amounts of funds that are saved. He stated that he favors the
proposition that is put forward in HJR 7, as it will minimize the
effect on taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like to offer an amendment to
the resolution, and he asked whether that would be out of order.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Representative Bunde would withdraw
his motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, "There is no amendment that will make
this turkey fly."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Representative Rokeberg would be out of
order.
Number 2121
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he could not support the resolution. He
stated that he appreciated Representative Martin's feelings for the
resolution but he still must disagree. He said he is concerned
about the responsiveness in a time of emergency and believes it is
the legislators' responsibility and the reason for being elected.
Number 2162
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed they are elected to do the public's bidding,
although there are times when he does not like what has gone
through. He stated that there has been a "silent bleeding"
federally of the ability to control personal finances. He said,
"You see the reaction when it goes far enough; we are a rather
slow, methodical machine, but when it goes to the point that the
people object, then you get these things like flat tax, and sales
tax nationally and other alternatives to this bleeding." He
continued that that is the way the public gets their say without
constantly changing the constitution.
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understands the rules of the chair,
but he is finding himself in the position where he would normally
support this but cannot because it does not meet the requirements
without an amendment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that an at-ease could be called and
Representative Rokeberg and Representative Bunde could talk about
it.
Number 2229
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he respects the philosophy of the
intent of the resolution.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Voting against moving
HJR 7 from committee were Representatives Bunde, Berkowitz and
Porter. Representative Croft voted in favor of it; and
Representatives Rokeberg and Green voted in favor, indicating the
desire to amend it. Representative James was absent. Therefore,
HJR 7 failed to move out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee
by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that he appreciated the discussion.
HB 261 - LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING SURCHARGE
Number 2300
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would hear HB 261, "An
Act relating to a surcharge imposed for violations of state or
municipal law and to the Alaska police training fund." He asked
Representative Davis to present the bill.
Number 2309
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor, explained that in 1994 a bill
was passed that initiated the surcharge and established the Alaska
police training fund. During the debate of that legislation, the
statement, "A tax is a tax, a fee is a fee, and a surcharge is a
surcharge," was quoted. He asked the committee to keep that in
mind.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the sponsor statement and sectional
analysis pretty much detail this bill. There are people who break
the law, and there are increased needs relating to law enforcement,
correctional officers, Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) and
others involved who need special training. In addition, the
legislature, city councils, and city and borough assemblies pass
laws that require specific training in certain areas, such as in
domestic violence cases. This is an expense that the state is
currently paying for, and this bill will make the abuser pay.
Those who are creating the problem and the need for training will,
with HB 261, have a surcharge on their fines that will go towards
the Alaska police training fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained that in 1994, when the legislature
passed the law that initiated a surcharge, a broad list of
violations and crimes was considered. It is his understanding from
the debate that took place that it was felt that a small piece of
legislation was best. That passed, and what is currently in effect
is a $10 surcharge on moving violations; those dollars are being
appropriated by the legislature to the training fund to provide for
training and certification of public safety officers and
correctional offers around the state. Representative Davis noted
that probation and parole officers are included in that also;
training is required of them to handle specific cases.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said where the surcharge is currently $10, HB
261 raises it to $15. In addition, it expands to other crimes the
assessment of a surcharge. He said the fiscal note indicates how
many crimes are currently tried - by category, including the
numbers of felonies, DUIs (driving under the influence),
misdemeanors, and infractions - and it applies the surcharges.
TAPE 98-5, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he believes that currently the trooper
academy in Sitka is being provided $800,000 in straight general
funds. Over time, HB 261 is attempting to cover all of the
training needs for public safety officers, probation/parole
officers, VPSOs and correctional officers in Alaska. He emphasized
that those abusing the system will be paying for the needs they
create.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the fiscal note (from the Alaska Court
System, dated 01/27/98, faxed from "Admin. Accounting" on
01/28/98). He asked why the funding source shows that it is the
general fund, rather than general fund/program receipts.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS specified that the fiscal note from the Alaska
Police Standards Council, dated 01/27/98, indicates general
fund/program receipts. He pointed out that the fiscal note for
124.9 (thousand dollars) is from the Alaska Court System and
reflects the cost to the court for clerks to administer the
surcharge, the fines as they come in.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about Representative Davis's indication that
they would receive some $450,000 in fines.
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that is correct. That is the amount in
fines, and this would be an additional cost to the courts.
Number 0103
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned why three new people are needed for
something that they are largely already doing. He asked whether it
is because of the new crimes that are being covered.
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he could skirt over that and someone from
the court system could get into some detail. He advised members
there is some concern by the court system. Currently, their
computers would not be able to handle this; there would have to be
some manual work done to properly account for and distribute the
dollars.
Number 0134
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether these surcharges are something
that local governments could do, and "we're sort of preempting the
field."
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that a city police officer will
assess a surcharge, as they currently do. However, in most areas,
the citations and so forth are collected by the courts unless those
are mailed in. The state courts are still involved in accounting
for and distributing the dollars.
Number 0161
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested there would have to be a theoretical
limit on the efficacy of these. He stated, "You start to get to a
level of surcharges - I have no idea whether we're close to that or
not - but a level of surcharges where we're not collecting the
money anymore; we're over what these offenders can afford, and
we're getting to counterproductive. Have you satisfied yourself
that we're sort of not in that range yet?"
Number 0181
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had not completely satisfied himself,
but in many cases, there is a lot of discretion of the courts as to
what the fine will be, especially for felonies. Where there is
discretion, he would imagine the ability to pay would be taken into
consideration.
Number 0204
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the ability to pay is something
the courts factor in all the time within the hierarchy of what they
assess for restitution and fines. He stated his assumption that
this surcharge would be the lowest priority that has to be paid.
Number 0223
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he believes the bill would make it a
mandatory surcharge effected to all of the citations and fines. He
noted that there is an opportunity for community work to pay it
off, as there is for fines.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged he is not really familiar with
the criminal law and how it works. He asked whether there is a
mandated minimum fine, for example, for particular offenses like
driving under the influence, which allows them to charge the $85.
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested perhaps Representative Porter could
answer that. He explained that for a first-offense DUI, there is
a mandatory amount, and he believes there is also a mandatory
amount for a second offense. However, there is discretion for
felonies, as well as for some misdemeanors.
Number 0290
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that there is a situation
where there are various offenses, with minimum or refined ranges
applied to them. House Bill 261 calls for specific amounts of
monies and surcharges against those for a specific purpose. He
asked whether there is any distinction between charges brought
under a municipal code or state law. He further asked what happens
to all these fines and whether they go into the general fund. He
then noted that two communities in Alaska, Anchorage and Juneau,
prosecute their own crimes. He asked, "Can't we have a surcharge
to pay those folks back? Or how does that work?"
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Davis whether he wanted
Representative Porter to answer the question; Representative Davis
said it would be fine.
Number 0354
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it is true to a certain degree that the
City and Borough of Juneau prosecutes some of its misdemeanors; and
to a much larger degree, the Municipality of Anchorage prosecutes
its misdemeanors. However, the funds being discussed here, while
not dedicated, are program receipts that would be going into the
police standards training fund. He stated, "And the disparity that
I have with that - I guess in the interest of the statewide good -
I voted for and consented to the original bill, in which the
surcharge was just a small surcharge on traffic tickets. That goes
into the police standards training fund."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "Now, the primary responsibility
for the police standards operation is the required training that a
corrections officer now, or a police officer, must have to be
certified for the police -- it's called the Municipal Police
Academy, and I don't know what the corrections now is called, but
I assume it's the corrections basic academy or something. But the
first application, by statute, of these funds would have to go to
that. Certainly there, hopefully, will be funds available for
other types of in-service training."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "And, getting to my problem, then,
the Anchorage Police Department could minimally ... benefit from
these funds. But up to that point, they haven't. And, quite
frankly, they will have contributed half of them. And so, I can't
support this, unless some provision is made that some of these
funds, proportionately, can go to the agencies that generated them.
And the Anchorage Police Department is the only department that
does its own training. So, as to benefit law enforcement
throughout the state, those of us from Anchorage that were involved
in this said okay to the little one, but I can't do this. I just
flat can't."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that satisfied Representative
Rokeberg's questions.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it clarified several issues but didn't
exactly answer all his questions. He asked whether most fines are
shared with the municipalities.
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that municipalities do assess the
surcharge, which is collected and goes to the police training fund.
The Police Standards Council trains municipal officers. Therefore,
the municipalities are contributing and getting a benefit.
Anchorage has its own training academy.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated, "So, they don't utilize ... a lot of
the functions and training facilities that -- the Police Standards
Council sends the recruits and other members that need training.
How it could be addressed? If Anchorage is excluded, then that's
certainly one way, to exclude the Municipality of Anchorage from
it. There may be other ways." He suggested Mr. Shaw, Executive
Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, may have considered
mechanisms to address the problem.
Number 0550
CHAIRMAN GREEN said understanding what he'd heard, either the "424"
does not include training for Anchorage police, or the expenditures
are for non-Anchorage police. He suggested there is a disparity
between the coverage and the expenses.
Number 0569
LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council,
said he would think they are all-inclusive. He explained,
"Relative to your question, historically we do not pay for the
Anchorage Police Department recruit training, nor do we pay for the
Alaska State Trooper recruit training. Our responsibility by
statute is to pay for all municipal basic-level training. What
we've done with the existing surcharge is that we have regionalized
them to the best of our ability to support in-service training
between the Anchorage Police Academy and the Department of Public
of Safety training academy in Sitka."
MR. SHAW continued, "We budgeted $40,000 last year. And when we
use the academy in Anchorage, we use it for Southcentral Region.
So we support the Anchorage academy through the Kenai Police
Department, Seward, and all of Southcentral. And, as an example,
we put on a number of in-service courses at the Anchorage Police
Academy, in our support of those training dollars to that academy.
Again, not being able to support their basic training, that was our
best justification for use of those dollars."
MR. SHAW advised members they had also budgeted $35,000 for a new
municipal corrections officer academy at the Anchorage Police
Academy; these are basically jail officers for about 17 communities
statewide. They are trained at the Anchorage Police Academy with
the dollars from the Alaska police training fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that with the corrections now part
of police standards, this problem is even more exacerbated because
the Municipality of Anchorage pays the state for prisoner care for
people that they arrest, yet they are not appreciating any of the
revenue from the surcharge. He said it is kind of a double hit.
Number 0671
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 0-
LS0920\E.1, Luckhaupt, 1/27/98. Amendment 1 read:
Page 1, line 1, following "relating":
Insert "to fines and"
Page 2, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.035 is amended by adding a new subsection
to read:
(f) In imposing a fine, the court may not reduce
the fine by the amount of a surcharge or otherwise consider
the applicability of a surcharge to the offense."
Renumber the following bills [sic] sections accordingly.
Number 0687
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for discussion purposes. He asked:
If this is mandatory surcharge, does it affect restitution at all?
He suggested in the hierarchy, it would seem that this would be
below restitution.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he doesn't know whether there is any
hierarchy on fines or whether this is just added. He explained
that the rationale of the amendment is "for the courts, to hold any
thought of the surcharge down here while you get done with your
business and assessing fines, and then ... tack on a surcharge."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the concern is that they would
reduce the other fines otherwise, to compensate for that surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Chris Christensen to clarify the issue.
Number 0755
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said he does not
believe that the legislature has set forth a priority that
convicted criminals are supposed to pay fine, surcharge,
restitution. He stated, "I think the priorities are when someone
goes out and attempts to collect, through the civil process. For
example, the attorney general has a fines collection unit, and they
seize ... lots of permanent fund dividends every year. I think in
that hierarchy, surcharges fit into the category of monies owed to
the state, which is below child support and restitution and things
of that nature."
Number 0789
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Well, would you consider to be a
surcharge something to be paid following a fine?"
Number 0794
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated his understanding that judges typically
order the payment of things all at once, or they set a payment
schedule, and as the money comes in, it is sent straight off to the
general fund. In the example of traffic infractions, most people
typically pay with one check that lumps everything together. He
indicated his own agency must sort it out and specify what
percentage goes where.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN introduced Kevin Jardell, attorney and
committee aide for the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0835
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Green, advised members he had some experience in the
criminal field and had recently addressed the surcharge issue. It
has been his experience that the judges are required to impose the
present surcharge, and it is a requirement that it be paid within
ten days of the sentencing.
MR. JARDELL said he could not speak as to whether any action has
ever been instituted through a borough, city or municipality to
claim the $25 surcharge; he doesn't know whether it is effective or
efficient for them to do so, and he doesn't know whether they have
ever gone to that step. However, he does know that they are
required to pay within a certain amount time. That then goes down
to accounting, and from there, he'd never heard of anyone actually
having to go through a process to pay for it. "I imagine most of
them do pay the surcharge within that amount of time," he added.
MR. JARDELL said there is no hierarchy for a judge setting a
specific order of payment; during sentencing, the judge just speaks
to the idea that the defendant must pay this within ten days.
Typically, the defense attorney would then ask for more time - six
months or a year, for example - to pay the fine, depending on how
long the defendant will be in jail and things of that nature.
Number 0936
MR. JARDELL restated that the surcharge has to be paid within ten
days. If it is not paid, it has no bearing on whether or not the
fine is paid. He added, "If the fine is not paid, they will go to
probation and revoke probation or impose suspended ...."
Number 0946
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the surcharge is part of the
sentence or a civil assessment.
Number 0954
MR. JARDELL replied that he has done some research recently; he
believes that almost every state imposes some type of surcharge, as
does the federal government. He said he cannot find any case law
that speaks to whether a court has addressed the question of
whether it is civil or criminal. Mr. Jardell said his assessment
is that it is a civil imposition, and that they would have to go
through a contempt proceeding, because the court ordered it, "but
it would be a contempt proceeding if you were going to something to
the nature of -- place someone in jail for not paying the fine."
Number 0983
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his understanding that if there is
a failure to pay a fine or restitution, that is, in essence,
failure to comply with the sentence of the court.
MR. JARDELL said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked: If there is a failure to pay the
surcharge, which is severable from the fine, is that jailable
directly, as a failure to complete the sentence?
Number 1011
MR. JARDELL said it is his understanding that it is not. The judge
would have the ability to institute a contempt proceeding for not
complying with the order to pay a surcharge. But other than that,
the boroughs and municipalities would have to institute a "civil
process to claim, just as any debtor."
Number 1033
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether Mr. Jardell had seen any
double jeopardy arguments in regards to this.
MR. JARDELL said he has seen no case law.
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the handout titled, "Estimated
Revenues from Passage of HB 261 Based on FY 96 Court Disposition of
Cases Where Defendant Pled Guilty or was Found Guilty," which lists
Mr. Shaw as the source and carries the date 1/22/98.
Representative Croft then referred to the line titled, "Percent of
Total Surcharge Collected," and he asked for an explanation.
MR. SHAW said those are from historical 1996 court records. Those
percentiles add up to 100 percent. Of the 100 percent collection,
7 percent were felonies, for example. He specified that it was not
7 percent of 100 percent compliance.
Number 1152
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the columns with ranges of from 50
to 100 percent compliance. He asked whether they have any idea of
the average success rate for those.
Number 1165
MR. SHAW replied, "What I have from the superior court felony case
disposition, fiscal year '96, is pled guilty and nolo, is all I
have. And we have a percentage of those. As an example, on felony
cases, of 2,878 total, we have 2,041 pled guilty. We do not know,
of those 2,041, how many were actually paid upon. We just know
that those were pled guilty. Our estimates are only on bail
forfeiture, pled guilty or nolo by numbers, not by dollars
collected, because we have not been involved ourselves with
collecting on felonies prior to this, and I cannot tell you what
has and has not been collected upon.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding that they know the
various percentages of who pled guilty, who contested and who pled
nolo contendere, but they don't know how often that surcharge was
collected. He asked, "So, on those 50 to 100, we're just laying
out some guess ranges?"
MR. SHAW responded, "What we've done is we try to build an
historical number from a full fiscal year of collections on the
existing surcharge. And those are primarily moving violations.
And so, we have an historical track record now that we can pull
from. We just have not dealt with issues like infractions and
felonies in the past. Ours have been traffic offenses up until
this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked: Of traffic offenses, what percentage
of the money does the state get on the surcharges?
MR. SHAW said approximately 55 percent is what they have collected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether that is a $25 surcharge.
MR. SHAW responded that it is a $10 surcharge on moving violations;
it is a $25 surcharge on driving under the influence or driving
with a revoked or suspended license.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is a number somewhere,
either a total or by category, about the amount collected over the
total amount of fines.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that they do not have that information, and
that is one of the things he wants to talk about.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the committee would bring that up again.
Number 1281
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES noted that these fines are collected
and go into the general fund. She asked whether they are treated
as program receipts or as general fund income.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said program receipts.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her concern: She does not like
surcharges. She commented, "A tax is a tax is a tax, and a fine is
a fine is a fine, and so a surcharge on a fine is a tax." She said
this whole thing is based on an allocation, as opposed to anything
else. She added, "Otherwise we could just raise the fines. I'm
not convinced they're as high as they should be anyway."
Number 1349
MR. SHAW advised members that Alaska has just received $1 million
to hire police officers. In the last two weeks, his office has
received requests to help implement police departments around the
state. Places like Alakanuk, Anvik and Egegik, which have not
historically had police departments, now have developed ordinances
to fund police departments through this Department of Justice
grant. Mr. Shaw explained, "What they do not fund is the training.
We have an obligation to support their basic training."
MR. SHAW provided an example. Of the 17 officers to be hired under
this grant, four will be hired in Alakanuk. Mr. Shaw stated, "Now,
at $5,700 dollars apiece, we have to increase our budget
accordingly to fund those. In 1995, we had the ability to fund 13
police officers. Fiscal year '97, we funded 30 police officers.
Fiscal year 2000, we're looking at funding up to 60 police officers
in the state. And our existing budget would not allow that."
Number 1413
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Shaw anticipates that the state's
portion of that would come from surcharges.
MR. SHAW replied that it could.
Number 1423
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
Number 1443
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any other objection.
Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1463
MR. CHRISTENSEN presented his testimony. He specified that his
comments would relate to fiscal issues, and he would make those
comments again to the House Finance Standing Committee and
proposing some amendments. He said he had been working with the
sponsor on that. However, he wanted the House Judiciary Standing
Committee to be aware of these issues also.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained, "Surcharges are something that have
become very, very popular in other states. And, of course, we take
no position on the philosophy behind surcharges. ... That's
something that our constitution leaves to your discretion, and I
know the supreme court has made it clear in several cases that in
this state, sentencing is primarily a matter ... of the
legislature. There is very little judicial discretion in
fashioning a sentence beyond what the legislature sets in the
statute. In California, for example, they now apply $17 in
surcharges for every ten dollars' worth of fine. So, if you get a
$1,000 fine, you owe the government $2,700."
Number 1516
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued, "The surcharge that was passed several
years ago was the first surcharge we've had in Alaska. And at that
time, we told the legislature that the computer system we had was
marginally capable of accounting for one surcharge, but it was
incapable ... of accounting for more than one surcharge."
MR. CHRISTENSEN told members the court system has been in the Dark
Ages with computers for many years. They don't currently have an
integrated case accounting system; instead, they have a 20-year-old
statistics-generating program that modifications have been made to
so it can do some case accounting.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained, "Now, you gave us some money about five
years ago to design an integrated computer system for the courts
that would not just do accounting but would look at all areas of
the court system and pull statistics out that you need to make the
kind of decisions you have to make here. ... That system has been
delayed. When that system is up and running - in about a year and
a half - it will be able to keep track of up to 99 surcharges,
which should take care of the next three or four years." [There
was laughter.]
MR. CHRISTENSEN informed the committee that for now, any surcharge
above and beyond what is already on the books has to be handled
completely by people, not by a computer. If everybody convicted of
an offense wrote a check to the state before leaving the
courthouse, it would not be a problem. However, there many
variations in how these are paid. Some defendants pay at the time
of sentencing; some mail in their money and never show up at court;
some pay the court at a later date, perhaps in a different fiscal
year; some do time payments; some never pay at all and have their
permanent fund dividends seized by the attorney general sometime
down the road; some never pay but do not have their dividends
seized because they have moved out of state or are in jail on
another charge; some do community service in lieu of paying the
fine or surcharge; some pay, then appeal the conviction, resulting
in an order from the appellate court to give the money back; some
pay money directly to municipalities; and some pay it to the state
and the state has to turn it over to the municipalities.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members it is labor-intensive, and a lot
goes into it that people don't realize it. With an appropriately
designed computerized system, it is just a question of data entry,
which they will have in a year and a half.
Number 1670
MR. CHRISTENSEN told members the fiscal notes he had provided are
a low-ball figure of what it costs to do this by hand. He pointed
out that it costs them nothing for a judge to impose the surcharge,
for them to receive money from the defendant or for them to turn it
over to the general fund. The cost is in counting it before it is
turned over to the general fund.
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated, "And in good conscience, as a manager, Mr.
Chairman, I can't really justify telling the legislature that I
need three new union employees to count the money before we give it
to you. Last year, we turned over $4.4 million in fines and bail
forfeitures to the general fund. We keep none of it; we turn over
every penny. And you will get that money anyway. And I will be
proposing some ways to the Finance Committee to ... eliminate the
need for a fiscal note, to impose a surcharge, collect the money
but not take bodies to do it. And that would probably involve -
for the next year and a half, until the computer system is on-line
- having us make some educated estimates based on pulling a sample,
rather than actually tracking each individual case."
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how the fines themselves, not the
surcharges, are disposed of. Do they all go back to the state's
general fund, or is there any sharing between the municipalities
and the state?
Number 1774
MR. CHRISTENSEN answered, "If the state collects money from a
municipal prosecution, they turn the money over to the
municipality. ... If they collect it based on a state prosecution,
it's all turned over to the general fund. ... Now, the major
municipalities, we set up a system many years ago wherefore -- for
mail-in bail, for traffic tickets, things like that. You don't
ever send it to the state; you send it directly to the city. The
cities used to like to use the state's accounting system; it saved
them a lot of expense, but ... that really wasn't a good thing.
And so the major cities all do it themselves. Some of the smaller
communities, we will accept their tickets and process it and send
it back, but we keep 10 percent and turn that in to the general
fund."
Number 1827
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, for the Municipality of Anchorage,
whether the municipality's prosecutors would bring an action under
state statute or would always use the municipal code.
MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that they always use their municipal
code.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that therefore, any fines would
go back to them.
MR. CHRISTENSEN concurred. He said the court system is always used
one way or another, so there is no savings there. However, it does
save the Department of Law, the Public Defender Agency and the
Department of Corrections a lot of money, because if someone is
charged under a municipal code section, the city prosecutor pays to
prosecute it. They hire a private public defender to represent the
person if he or she is indigent, and they are theoretically
supposed to reimburse the Department of Corrections for the
incarceration.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the surcharges under that
circumstance, in Anchorage or Juneau, would go to the training fund
here.
Number 1890
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated his understanding that the surcharges are
supposed to come to the general fund. He said he thinks that is
one of the problems with the existing surcharge; not as much money
was raised as people anticipated, which he believes is partly
because in some municipalities, the money is being paid directly to
them, for mail-in bail, and the municipalities are keeping it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Well, where are you mailing the
money now?"
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied, "When we get it, we send it to the general
fund. If the city gets it ...."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that includes the surcharge
money.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that is correct.
Number 1938
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said none of this is filtering down to
Anchorage, the biggest generator. It goes to the general fund,
where it is viewed as program receipts that go into the training
fund.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested this is another way that urban areas
subsidize rural areas, and he won't support it. He said that to
him, it is a user fee. "We all need the police, but the people
that are getting busted are using them," he explained. "And I'm
perfectly willing to have them pay a surcharge for this training.
But it's got to be some equity, and it's got to filter down to the
main generator, or I'm not going to support it. So, I've got two
choices: You can either eliminate the whole thing and we'll send
that million dollars back to the feds - and maybe our taxes will go
down next year - or you can amend this bill here ... to address the
equity problem. And I would highly recommend that the sponsor
address the equity problem."
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he has a different
understanding of the flow of money. When the municipal prosecutor
takes an Anchorage Police Department (APD) case and runs it through
the district court, the fines collected from that case go back to
municipal coffers, as he understands it. He asked whether it is
correct that the Municipality of Anchorage is responsible for all
misdemeanor prosecutions generated by the APD.
Number 2064
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied, "My understanding is that they're
responsible for it if the charging officer charges under a
municipal ordinance." He said he believes that sometimes they
charge under state laws too. "So, it depends," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that essentially all domestic
violence cases, DUIs and simple assaults come through the municipal
prosecutor.
Number 2087
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that Anchorage does most of those things
internally, through the municipal prosecutor's office.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the state court and the state
prosecutor pick up the felonies generated in Anchorage.
MR. CHRISTENSEN concurred.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the fines and forfeitures
that come in to the municipal coffers from the collections of the
court for municipal misdemeanors do not come close to paying for
the prosecutor's office, let alone for public defenders, police or
corrections costs.
Number 2157
MR. CHRISTENSEN said, "One of the previous witnesses stated that
we'd been collecting 55 percent in the past. I would expect that
to go up, because we did pull a sample of citations which people
thought should have had surcharges on them and there weren't. And
what we discovered is that 60 percent of them -- there were police
officers around the state, both troopers and city police officers,
who were using the old uniform citation, which didn't have a
surcharge on it. ... They're expensive; people don't want to throw
them away. And if you write somebody a ticket and it doesn't say
you have to add $10 onto the ticket for a surcharge, they don't
send in that amount on their check, and we have no way of going
after it. So, over time, as the local police and the troopers get
rid of the old forms, I would expect more money to be collected by
the state."
Number 2238
MR. SHAW referred to Representative Porter's comments about how
much Anchorage brings in. Mr. Shaw stated, "1996 offenses by
citation: There were 99,000 citations written; of those citations,
Anchorage wrote 32,000. That's approximately 32 percent. The
Alaska State Troopers wrote 31,000 of those. So between the two -
collectively between the troopers and the Anchorage Police
Department - there's no question that those two agencies bring in
the most. But just for the record - since I do have the citations,
by offense, here in front of me - 32 percent of those dollars came
directly from Anchorage."
Number 2288
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-
Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, noted that the bill
deals with Title 12 and not much with criminal law. That morning,
she had spoken with Marilyn May, Assistant Attorney General, who is
the head of Collections and Support, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law. Ms. May is in charge of collecting money from
people who don't pay in the courthouse, and they must try to track
those people down. Ms. Carpeneti informed members she had asked
Ms. May to write a letter to the committee outlining the problems
with the current and proposed surcharges, and possible solutions.
Number 2369
MS. CARPENETI advised members of a minor issue with HB 261. On
page 2, line 18, it is a little confusing. It establishes a
surcharge of $85 for a felony, and then it establishes a surcharge
of $75 for drunk driving-type offenses. However, there is a felony
in those DUI offenses. She suggested the committee might want to
clarify whether the drunk driving felony should be under the $85 or
the $75 surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Shaw for verification that his
testimony had been that 32 percent of the citations were written by
the APD, and approximately the same amount by the troopers.
MR. SHAW replied, "Yes, that's true."
TAPE 98-6, SIDE A
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said state citations are not the
Municipality of Anchorage citations; therefore, there should be a
greater amount of money coming from Anchorage if that testimony is
correct.
Number 0032
MR. SHAW responded, "We get a check every three months from the
Municipality of Anchorage. They send us a check directly; we sign
it back to the general fund. With the state citations, which --
that 99,000 number I gave you are total citations, both municipal
and state, that are put into the APSIN [Alaska Public Safety
Information Network] system."
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he was confused. He asked, "The 32
percent, approximately, Municipality of Anchorage, 32 percent
troopers and another third, everybody else?"
MR. SHAW said yes.
Number 0123
CHAIRMAN GREEN said now he was confused; he was of the opinion that
of the 99,000 total, 32 percent are from Anchorage.
Number 0143
MR. SHAW said that is true.
Number 0152
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said now he was confused. He asked, "The
32 percent Anchorage, is that Municipality of Anchorage? That's
APD stops, as opposed to APD or -- another 32 percent was trooper
stops within the municipality, like on the Glenn [Highway] or on
the Seward [Highway], anywhere?"
MR. SHAW said no. The state trooper citations are statewide. The
Anchorage citations are within the Municipality of Anchorage. "We
don't count Palmer or Wasilla," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether that is a combination of APD
and troopers.
Number 0188
MR. SHAW replied, "The 66 percent, roughly, that's an affirmative."
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the question is whether some of the
state trooper citations are actually within the Municipality of
Anchorage.
MR. SHAW said yes.
Number 0221
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were other questions. There
being none, he announced that with the concurrence of the sponsor,
he would hold HB 261 over. He noted that several concerns had been
expressed, including that about the felony DUI. In addition, a
letter would be coming within the next few days.
Number 0264
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was fine with him. (HB 261 was held
over.)
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that HB 282 had been pulled off the
calendar at the request of the sponsor.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0350
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|