Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120

04/11/2016 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

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

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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ SB 91 OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 200 ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+= SB 24 LEGIS. ETHICS ACT: CONTRACTORS,INTERNS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 24(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HJR 19 CONST. AM: APPROPRIATIONS FROM CBR TELECONFERENCED
Moved HJR 19 Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 11, 2016                                                                                         
                           1:06 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair                                                                                          
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Neal Foster                                                                                                      
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Matt Claman                                                                                                      
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett                                                                                                 
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) AM                                                                                        
"An  Act relating  to  criminal law  and  procedure; relating  to                                                               
controlled substances; relating to  immunity from prosecution for                                                               
the  crime of  prostitution; relating  to probation;  relating to                                                               
sentencing;  establishing   a  pretrial  services   program  with                                                               
pretrial  services officers  in  the  Department of  Corrections;                                                               
relating to the  publication of suspended entries  of judgment on                                                               
a  publicly available  Internet  website;  relating to  permanent                                                               
fund dividends;  relating to  electronic monitoring;  relating to                                                               
penalties  for violations  of municipal  ordinances; relating  to                                                               
parole;  relating to  correctional restitution  centers; relating                                                               
to community  work service; relating to  revocation, termination,                                                               
suspension, cancellation,  or restoration of a  driver's license;                                                               
relating  to  the  excise  tax  on  marijuana;  establishing  the                                                               
recidivism  reduction  fund;  relating  to  the  Alaska  Criminal                                                               
Justice Commission;  relating to the disqualification  of persons                                                               
convicted of  specified drug offenses  from participation  in the                                                               
food  stamp and  temporary assistance  programs; relating  to the                                                               
duties  of the  commissioner of  corrections; amending  Rules 32,                                                               
32.1, 38,  41, and  43, Alaska Rules  of Criminal  Procedure, and                                                               
repealing  Rules   41(d)  and  (e),  Alaska   Rules  of  Criminal                                                               
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(JUD)                                                                                                  
"An Act relating  to the applicability of  the Legislative Ethics                                                               
Act to  legislative interns, legislative  volunteers, legislative                                                               
consultants,    legislative    independent   contractors,    sole                                                               
proprietorships, and other legal entities."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 24(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19                                                                                                   
Proposing  an  amendment to  the  Constitution  of the  State  of                                                               
Alaska relating to the constitutional budget reserve fund.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HJR 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 200                                                                                                              
"An  Act  establishing  procedures  related  to  a  petition  for                                                               
adoption  of a  child in  state custody;  adding a  definition of                                                               
'proxy  for  a  formal  petition';  amending  Rule  6(a),  Alaska                                                               
Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 91                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
03/25/15       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/25/15       (S)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
04/02/15       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
04/02/15       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/02/15       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/03/16       (S)       SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS                                                                
02/03/16       (S)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
02/13/16       (S)       STA AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                          
02/13/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/13/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/18/16       (S)       STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/18/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/18/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/25/16       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/25/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/25/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
03/01/16       (S)       STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/01/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/01/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
03/03/16       (S)       STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/03/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/03/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
03/08/16       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/08/16       (S)       Moved CSSSSB 91(STA) Out of Committee                                                                  
03/08/16       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
03/08/16       (S)       STA AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/08/16       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/09/16       (S)       STA RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE                                                                  
03/09/16       (S)       DP: COGHILL, MCGUIRE                                                                                   
03/09/16       (S)       DNP: STOLTZE                                                                                           
03/09/16       (S)       NR: HUGGINS                                                                                            
03/09/16       (S)       AM: WIELECHOWSKI                                                                                       
03/09/16       (S)       JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE                                                                 
                         23                                                                                                     
03/09/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/09/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/09/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/11/16       (S)       JUD AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/11/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/11/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/16/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/16/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/16/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/18/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/18/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/18/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/21/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/21/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/21/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/23/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/23/16       (S)       Moved CSSSSB 91(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                  
03/23/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/24/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/24/16       (S)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/25/16       (S)       JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE                                                                           
03/25/16       (S)       DP: MCGUIRE, COGHILL, COSTELLO                                                                         
03/25/16       (S)       NR: WIELECHOWSKI                                                                                       
03/25/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/25/16       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/28/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/28/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/28/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
03/29/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/29/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/29/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
03/30/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/30/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/30/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
03/31/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/31/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/31/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/01/16       (S)       FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/01/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/01/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/01/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/01/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/01/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/02/16       (S)       FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                     
04/02/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/02/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/04/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/04/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/04/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/04/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/04/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/04/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/05/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/05/16       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/05/16       (S)       FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/05/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/05/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/06/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/06/16       (S)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
04/07/16       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/07/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/07/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/07/16       (S)       FIN AT 5:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
04/07/16       (S)       Moved CSSSSB 91(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                  
04/07/16       (S)       MINUTE (FIN)                                                                                           
04/08/16       (S)       FIN RPT CS 4DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE                                                                       
04/08/16       (S)       DP: KELLY, MACKINNON, MICCICHE, BISHOP                                                                 
04/08/16       (S)       NR: DUNLEAVY                                                                                           
04/08/16       (S)       AM: HOFFMAN                                                                                            
04/09/16       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/09/16       (S)       VERSION: CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM                                                                             
04/10/16       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/10/16       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/10/16       (H)       JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/10/16       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/11/16       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 24                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: LEGIS. ETHICS ACT: CONTRACTORS, INTERNS                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GARDNER                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
01/21/15       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/21/15       (S)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/05/15       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/05/15       (S)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
03/12/15       (S)       STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/12/15       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/12/15       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
03/31/15       (S)       STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/31/15       (S)       Moved SB 24 Out of Committee                                                                           
03/31/15       (S)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
04/01/15       (S)       STA RPT 2DP 2NR                                                                                        
04/01/15       (S)       DP: COGHILL, MCGUIRE                                                                                   
04/01/15       (S)       NR: STOLTZE, HUGGINS                                                                                   
02/24/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/24/16       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/24/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
02/29/16       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/29/16       (S)       Moved CSSB 24(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                    
02/29/16       (S)       MINUTE (JUD)                                                                                           
03/02/16       (S)       JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE                                                                           
03/02/16       (S)       DP: MCGUIRE, COSTELLO, COGHILL                                                                         
03/02/16       (S)       NR: WIELECHOWSKI, MICCICHE                                                                             
04/01/16       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/01/16       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 24(JUD)                                                                                  
04/04/16       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/04/16       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
04/07/16       (H)       STA RPT 2DP 5NR                                                                                        
04/07/16       (H)       DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, LYNN                                                                               
04/07/16       (H)       NR:    SPOHNHOLZ,     STUTES,    KELLER,                                                               
                         TALERICO, VAZQUEZ                                                                                      
04/07/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
04/07/16       (H)       Moved CSSB 24(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                    
04/07/16       (H)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
04/10/16       (H)       JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/10/16       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/11/16       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 19                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: APPROPRIATIONS FROM CBR                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) REINBOLD                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
03/20/15       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/20/15       (H)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
04/07/15       (H)       STA RPT 6NR                                                                                            
04/07/15       (H)       NR: TALERICO, STUTES, KELLER, VAZQUEZ,                                                                 
                         KREISS-TOMKINS, LYNN                                                                                   
04/07/15       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
04/07/15       (H)       Moved HJR 19 Out of Committee                                                                          
04/07/15       (H)       MINUTE (STA)                                                                                           
02/08/16       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/08/16       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
04/11/16       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JORDAN SCHILLING, Staff                                                                                                         
Senator John Coghill                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 91, explained                                                                   
differences between SB 91 and HB 205, and answered questions.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director                                                                                                         
Legal Services Section                                                                                                          
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 91, answered                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner Designee                                                                                            
Department of Corrections                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 91, answered                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director                                                                                                
Board of Parole                                                                                                                 
Department of Corrections                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 91, answered                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SHERRI DAGLIE, Public Information Officer                                                                                       
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Corrections                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 91, answered                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TONY PIPER, Program Manager                                                                                                     
Alaska Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)                                                                                     
Division of Behavioral Health                                                                                                   
Department of Health & Social Services                                                                                          
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing on SB  91, discussed the                                                             
Alaska Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BERTA GARDNER, Senator                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of SB 24  presented the                                                             
bill as prime sponsor.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator                                                                                                   
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing  of SB 24, advised he was                                                             
available to answer questions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
LORA REINBOLD, Representative                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the  hearing of HJR 19, presented the                                                             
bill as prime sponsor.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:06:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  GABRIELLE  LEDOUX  called  the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting to  order at  1:06 p.m.  Representatives Lynn,                                                               
Foster, Claman,  and LeDoux  were present at  the call  to order.                                                               
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Keller  arrived as the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
        SB 91-OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:07:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR  SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE  FOR SENATE BILL  NO. 91(FIN)  am, "An                                                               
Act  relating   to  criminal  law  and   procedure;  relating  to                                                               
controlled substances; relating to  immunity from prosecution for                                                               
the  crime of  prostitution; relating  to probation;  relating to                                                               
sentencing;  establishing   a  pretrial  services   program  with                                                               
pretrial  services officers  in  the  Department of  Corrections;                                                               
relating to the  publication of suspended entries  of judgment on                                                               
a  publicly available  Internet  website;  relating to  permanent                                                               
fund dividends;  relating to  electronic monitoring;  relating to                                                               
penalties  for violations  of municipal  ordinances; relating  to                                                               
parole;  relating to  correctional restitution  centers; relating                                                               
to community  work service; relating to  revocation, termination,                                                               
suspension, cancellation,  or restoration of a  driver's license;                                                               
relating  to  the  excise  tax  on  marijuana;  establishing  the                                                               
recidivism  reduction  fund;  relating  to  the  Alaska  Criminal                                                               
Justice Commission;  relating to the disqualification  of persons                                                               
convicted of  specified drug offenses  from participation  in the                                                               
food  stamp and  temporary assistance  programs; relating  to the                                                               
duties  of the  commissioner of  corrections; amending  Rules 32,                                                               
32.1, 38,  41, and  43, Alaska Rules  of Criminal  Procedure, and                                                               
repealing  Rules   41(d)  and  (e),  Alaska   Rules  of  Criminal                                                               
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Before the  committee was CS  for Sponsor Substitute  for Senate                                                               
Bill 91(FIN) am, Version Y.A]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  advised the  intention today  is to  ask questions,                                                               
note anything  in Senate Bill  91 that  is different from  HB 205                                                               
that the committee  agrees with, and then offer  amendments as to                                                               
the  portions the  committee  does  not agree.    She added,  the                                                               
upcoming committee  substitute is basically HB  205 [incorporated                                                               
into SB  91].  She then  asked Senator Coghill's aide  to present                                                               
the bill and explain the differences between SB 91 and HB 205.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:08:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JORDAN  SCHILLING,  Staff,  Senator John  Coghill,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,   referred  to   the   spreadsheet  title:   Policy,                                                               
Differences between  SB 91 and HB  205, Code Section and  said he                                                               
will identify  the changes between  the two bills  and amendments                                                               
adopted thus far in SB 91, which is before the committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  pointed to [AS  11.46.130(a)] HB 205,  an amendment                                                               
recently adopted  by the House Judiciary  Standing Committee, and                                                               
stated  that the  felony  theft  threshold is  at  $1,000 and  is                                                               
linked to the CPI increase every  five years.  Whereas, SB 91 has                                                               
a threshold of $2,000, and it is not linked to the CPI.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:20:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to the  policy difference between $1,000 and                                                               
$2,000, and asked why the Senate chose not to inflation-proof.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  acknowledged that he  had difficulty  recalling all                                                               
of the conversations around the  inflation adjustment, and opined                                                               
that it was  removed in the first committee of  referral due to a                                                               
general uncomfortableness  in linking it  to the CPI  because the                                                               
legislature should consider that  number as it necessitates being                                                               
adjusted, rather than automatically.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised  that the legislature would  be coming back                                                               
to this every couple of years.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  referred to the spreadsheet  and asked Mr.                                                               
Shilling to explain the color coding.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  explained  that the  light  orange  tint  reflects                                                               
amendments  recently  adopted  by the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee on HB 205.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  asked whether that means  the portions not                                                               
tinted reflect parts  in HB 205 that  are not in SB 91,  or in SB                                                               
91 and not in HB 205.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  answered that the  entire spreadsheet  reflects the                                                               
differences between  the two bills,  and the tinted  portions are                                                               
different  due to  the amendments  the  House Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee adopted.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:10:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING   [referring  to  AS   11.56.730]  said   that  the                                                               
commission  recommended that  failure to  appear be  a violation,                                                               
but then becoming  a crime once the individual  has absconded for                                                               
30  days or  more.   The  difference is  what level  of crime  it                                                               
becomes  once   it  has  been   determined  the   individual  has                                                               
absconded.    He  explained  that   HB  205  reads  that  if  the                                                               
individual has absconded  it is a class  A misdemeanor regardless                                                               
of the underlying offense.   Within SB 91, it would  be a class A                                                               
misdemeanor  if the  underlying crime  was a  misdemeanor, and  a                                                               
class C felony if the underlying crime was a felony.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:11:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SHILLING,  [referring   to   AS  11.71.030(a),   misconduct                                                               
involving   controlled   substances    statutes],   advised   the                                                               
commission  recommended a  2.5  gram  threshold to  differentiate                                                               
between a  high level drug dealer  and a low level  drug dealer -                                                               
class B  felony versus class C  felony.  He explained  that SB 91                                                               
separates  one-eighth substances  out of  the 2.5  gram threshold                                                               
and applies  its own threshold  of 1 gram  to 1A substances.   He                                                               
noted  that the  Senate version  also takes  into account  dosage                                                               
units  and  aggregate  weight  for  the  purpose  of  determining                                                               
whether it is a class B or class C felony.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:12:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to AS  12.55.027] said  SB 91 has  a 120                                                               
day cap on the amount of  pretrial credit a defendant can receive                                                               
on electronic monitoring, and opined  that this committee adopted                                                               
an amendment removing that firm 120 day cap.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:12:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [referring to  AS  12.55.090(c)]  said the  change                                                               
relates to  probation term lengths,  and within HB 205  there are                                                               
probation   limits  specifically   for  domestic   violence  (DV)                                                               
offenses.   Whereas, he pointed out,  SB 91 has a  three-year cap                                                               
on all assault offenses and not solely DV-related assaults.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  surmised that HB  205 has a higher  cap on                                                               
DV  offenses  compared to  everything  else,  whereas the  Senate                                                               
doesn't make the distinction.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING requested  that the  committee review  the language                                                               
within the  two bills because it  is more nuanced than  that, and                                                               
he turned to SB 91, Version Y, page 39.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING, in  response to Chair LeDoux,  acknowledged that he                                                               
did not  have SB 91,  Version Y.A, but had  Version Y.   He asked                                                               
whether the version before the committee was Y.A.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:14:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:14:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  pointed to SB 91,  Version Y.A, page 39,  and to HB                                                               
205, Version H, page 40.  He  opined that within HB 205, page 40,                                                               
the  House  Judiciary  Standing Committee  adopted  an  amendment                                                               
changing the  maximum term of  probation for an  unclassified sex                                                               
offense  to 10  years and  "it is  not reflected  in what  we see                                                               
here."   That amendment  "being adopted  into this"  does provide                                                               
parity on  that offense in SB  91.  He pointed  to the difference                                                               
as it relates to the misdemeanors,  such that HB 205 is two years                                                               
for  a  misdemeanor  offense involving  domestic  violence  (DV).                                                               
Whereas, within SB 91 it is  three years for any offense under AS                                                               
11.41.230, which is assault.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it  was assault or assault in                                                               
the fourth degree.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING clarified that it is assault in the fourth degree.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:16:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  12.55.110] said the change relates                                                               
to  the  technical  cap  on   technical  violation  stays.    The                                                               
commission  recommended  that  individuals  committing  technical                                                               
violations spend  three days, five  days, and ten days  in prison                                                               
for  those violations.   The  commission  acknowledged that  some                                                               
technical  probation violations  are  worse than  others, and  it                                                               
recommended  excluding non-completion  of sex  offender treatment                                                               
from the  definition of technical  violation.  The  Senate carved                                                               
out  more   things  from  that   definition,  for   example,  not                                                               
completing  batterers' intervention  programing,  and failure  to                                                               
complete  special sex  offender supervision  conditions would  be                                                               
excluded from  the definition of  technical violation.   He added                                                               
that HB 205 does not make similar carve outs.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:17:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [referring to  AS  12.55.125(a)]  said the  change                                                               
relates  to  mandatory  minimums  for  first  and  second  degree                                                               
murder.   He  asked for  clarification  as to  whether the  House                                                               
Judiciary   Standing  Committee   had  considered   an  amendment                                                               
regarding the mandatory minimums, and  should he skip to the next                                                               
change.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  said to not  skip to  the next change  because this                                                               
committee  had  considered the  amendment  and  it was  withdrawn                                                               
pending the  Senate's actions.   She clarified that  that doesn't                                                               
mean this committee will exactly take up the Senate's version.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  explained that the  Senate increased  the mandatory                                                               
minimum by  five-years for  first degree  murder, moving  from 20                                                               
years to  25 years; and  second degree murder would  be increased                                                               
to five years, moving from 10 years to 15 years.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:17:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to AS  12.12.55.135(a)] said  the change                                                               
relates to misdemeanor class A ...                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  interjected  that another  issue  on  the                                                               
murder  statute was  a discussion  regarding  stacking issues  on                                                               
second degree  murder wherein multiple  people are killed  in one                                                               
event.    He  asked  whether  the  Senate  had  adopted  anything                                                               
regarding stacking.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING advised that he was  not aware of the stacking issue                                                               
and opined that it was not considered in the Senate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  surmised that murder in  the second degree                                                               
from the Senate was 15 years.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:18:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [returning  to his  testimony  regarding  class  A                                                               
misdemeanors] advised  that the commission recommended  a zero to                                                               
30  day   presumptive  range  for   class  A   misdemeanors  with                                                               
exceptions.  An exception in HB  205 is that a DV-related assault                                                               
in the fourth  degree can be sentenced within a  zero to one-year                                                               
range.  Similarly,  in SB 91, DV-assault in the  fourth degree is                                                               
an exception  from the zero  to 30  range, and DV-assault  in the                                                               
fourth degree  can be  sentenced up to  one-year, but  the Senate                                                               
also included  non-DV-related assault  in the fourth  degree, and                                                               
that exception to the zero to 30 day presumption.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what elements are involved in a non-DV-                                                                      
assault in the fourth degree.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  deferred to the  Department of Law on  the elements                                                               
of  the offense,  and opined  that it  would be  a mutual  combat                                                               
situation  where  the relationship  is  not  that of  a  domestic                                                               
violence offense.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that within HB 205 only DV-                                                                      
assault  in the  fourth  degree  has the  carve-out  of a  longer                                                               
sentence  than the  30  day limit.   Whereas,  within  SB 91  all                                                               
assaults  in the  fourth degree  have a  30 day  limit, even  DV-                                                               
assault.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that was for first offenses.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING agreed,  and he  said any  crime that  is a  repeat                                                               
conviction can be sentenced outside of  the zero to 30 day range.                                                               
Therefore, the  exceptions for all  assault in the  fourth degree                                                               
could be applied upon the first DV conviction, he explained.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:20:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to AS  22.35.030(b)] said it  relates to                                                               
the  suspended  entry  of  judgment provision.    Within  SB  91,                                                               
language specifically  provides for  those convictions  to appear                                                               
on CourtView,  and he  opined that  the House  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee adopted  an amendment requiring that  those convictions                                                               
do not appear on CourtView.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Mr. Shilling he was correct.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:21:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.07.010] said the change relates                                                               
to  the  agencies  that  are to  work  collaboratively  with  the                                                               
Department   of   Corrections    (DOC)   to   adopt   regulations                                                               
implementing  the pretrial  release decision  framework, and  the                                                               
recommendations that  would be  made to  the courts.   Currently,                                                               
the Office  of Victims' Rights (OVR)  in HB 205 is  not among the                                                               
agencies working on those regulations.   Whereas, he said, within                                                               
the SB  91 the  Office of  Victims' Rights will  be part  of that                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:21:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.07.030] said the change relates                                                               
to  the  ability  of  the  Department  of  Corrections  (DOC)  to                                                               
contract  out   its  supervision  of  pretrial   defendants.    A                                                               
provision  adopted within  SB  91 explicitly  allows  the DOC  to                                                               
contract out,  for example,  pretrial electronic  supervision and                                                               
HB 205 does not contain a similar provision.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   LEDOUX  asked,   without  that   similar  provision   the                                                               
Department of  Corrections (DOC)  would not  be able  to contract                                                               
that out.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  acknowledged that it  is not entirely clear  to him                                                               
and he  opined that DOC has  broad authority to contract  out and                                                               
suggested it  might be  something to review.   He  further opined                                                               
that  he  was unsure  whether  it  was absolutely  necessary  for                                                               
language allowing DOC to contract out.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  explained  there has  been  some  concern  amongst                                                               
members  in the  House of  Representatives about  DOC contracting                                                               
out to private companies.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  agreed, and  he said he  had heard  some uneasiness                                                               
surrounding  private  electronic  monitoring  companies  and  the                                                               
amount of oversight the state has over those entities.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  remarked that once  Mr. Shilling's  presentation is                                                               
completed  she  would   like  to  hear  from   someone  from  the                                                               
Department  of Corrections  and the  Department of  Law regarding                                                               
assault in the fourth degree issues.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:23:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.16.089] said the change relates                                                               
to administrative parole policy.   He offered that SB 91 excluded                                                               
criminally  negligent  homicide,  a  class  B  felony,  from  the                                                               
administrative  parole  provision,  and  opined  that  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee had not made a similar carve-out.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:24:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [referring  to  AS  33.16.090(a)]  said  the  next                                                               
difference   relates   to   the   geriatric   parole   provision.                                                               
Currently,  he explained,  within  SB 91,  an individual  becomes                                                               
eligible for that form of  discretionary parole upon reaching the                                                               
age of  60 years,  and having  served 10 years.   However,  SB 91                                                               
excluded unclassified felons and  sex offenders from this policy.                                                               
He opined that within HB 205,  the age of eligibility is 55 years                                                               
with the length of stay required  to become eligible is 10 years,                                                               
and those offenders are not carved out of the policy.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:25:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [referring to  AS  33.16.090(b)]  said the  change                                                               
relates to  discretionary parole  eligibility for  sex offenders.                                                               
He  said   the  commission   recommended  that   eligibility  for                                                               
discretionary parole  for sex offenders  would occur at  the one-                                                               
third point  within their  sentence, and would  apply to  all sex                                                               
offenders except  repeat unclassified and class  A sex offenders.                                                               
The Senate Finance Committee  excluded unclassified sex offenders                                                               
from that policy,  which would be sexual abuse of  a minor in the                                                               
first degree  and sexual assault in  the first degree.   It moved                                                               
the point  in which  they become eligible  from one-third  of the                                                               
sentence to one-half  of the sentence.  He opined  that the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing  Committee had  not made  any changes  to that                                                               
policy,  and  that  it  conforms   exactly  to  the  commission's                                                               
recommendations.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:25:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.16.130] said the change relates                                                               
to a  provision inserted into SB  91 by the Senate  State Affairs                                                               
Standing Committee allowing the Board  of Parole to confer with a                                                               
corrections    officer    when   making    decisions    regarding                                                               
discretionary parole.   He pointed  out that a  similar provision                                                               
is not contained within HB 205.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:26:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to 33.16.150,  24/7 program] said  SB 91                                                               
contains a  provision granting authority  to the Board  of Parole                                                               
to place parolees  in the 24/7 sobriety program, and  HB 205 does                                                               
not contain that provision.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:26:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to AS  33.16.215, early  discharge] said                                                               
the commission recommended an  early discharge provision allowing                                                               
those ...                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked Mr.  Shilling to  explain, for  the committee                                                               
and the public, what is meant by the 24/7 sobriety program.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING explained  that the Board of Parole,  as a condition                                                               
of parole, may require an  individual to participate in a program                                                               
requiring a  breathalyzer test  twice a  day to  ensure sobriety.                                                               
He  offered that  it is  arguably something  the Board  of Parole                                                               
currently  has the  ability  to do,  and described  it  as a  bit                                                               
duplicative.   He added that  this provision was  inserted within                                                               
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  surmised that within  the 24/7 sobriety  program an                                                               
individual provides a  breathalyzer test twice a day.   She asked                                                               
how it  works exactly, and  how many  hours it takes  before zero                                                               
alcohol  registers  in  the  person's  system.    She  offered  a                                                               
scenario of  an individual taking  the first test at  12:00 noon,                                                               
has  a beer  immediately after  the  first test,  [and takes  the                                                               
second test 12 hours later].                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  offered that it  is difficult to answer  because he                                                               
is  not an  expert on  how  long it  takes a  body to  metabolize                                                               
alcohol, and  it varies  from person  to person.   He  agreed the                                                               
test happens  12 hours apart  and presumably an  individual could                                                               
consume some alcohol during that period  and still blow at a zero                                                               
blood alcohol content during the second test.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  inquired as to whether  the tests must be  12 hours                                                               
apart.  For  example, an individual takes the test  at 12:00 noon                                                               
and  rather than  having  them  take it  again  exactly 12  hours                                                               
later, could  the testing be random  so the person does  not know                                                               
when the test will occur.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:29:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING advised there are  other technologies that test more                                                               
frequently.   For  example, the  Department of  Corrections (DOC)                                                               
uses   Secure  Continuous   Remote  Alcohol   Monitoring  (SCRAM)                                                               
bracelets, a transdermal alcohol  testing devise that tests every                                                               
30 minutes.   There  are other  interventions to  ensure sobriety                                                               
beyond simply testing twice a day,  12 hours apart, he noted, and                                                               
deferred to DOC.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked whether a  parolee would have  to participate                                                               
in both the 24/7 program and the SCRAM bracelet.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING opined  that the Board of Parole  has the discretion                                                               
to  impose a  number  of  conditions and  he  thought  it may  be                                                               
possible to impose both conditions.   He deferred to the Board of                                                               
Parole and Jeff Edwards.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  noted that  Tony  Piper  from the  Alaska  Alcohol                                                               
Safety Action Program (ASAP) program  is available for questions,                                                               
but  Mr. Shilling  will finish  his  presentation before  calling                                                               
witnesses.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:30:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.16.210] said the change relates                                                               
to the  early discharge policy.   He advised that SB  91 excludes                                                               
unclassified felons, domestic  violence offenders, sex offenders,                                                               
and misdemeanants,  from the early  discharge policy.   He opined                                                               
that the  House Judiciary Standing  Committee had not  made those                                                               
carve-outs  to the  early discharge  provision.   Therefore,  the                                                               
only difference  would be  that within  SB 91,  misdemeanants are                                                               
not   eligible  for   early  discharge,   and   within  HB   205,                                                               
misdemeanants are eligible for early discharge.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:31:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING [referring  to AS  33.16.215] noted  that technical                                                               
violations had  previously been discussed,  and the reason  it is                                                               
on the spreadsheet  twice is because that same  policy applies to                                                               
both probation and parole.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:31:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING [referring to AS  33.20.010, earned good time credit                                                               
for sex  offenders] said the  commission recommended  a one-third                                                               
earned  credit  for  sex  offenders  who  complete  sex  offender                                                               
programming in  DOC facilities, and  that credit is  one-third of                                                               
the sentence.   He noted that SB 91 removes  this policy entirely                                                               
from the  bill.  The  House Judiciary Standing  Committee amended                                                               
that  provision, he  related, although  it has  not adjusted  the                                                               
credit amounts and it remains intact otherwise in HB 205.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:32:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  [referring to  AS 33.30.095]  said that  the change                                                               
relates to  reentry support  given to  inmates prior  to release.                                                               
He referred  to a provision  in the  bill which read:  "within 90                                                               
days of  release the DOC shall  do a number of  things to prepare                                                               
an individual for entry."   One of the new responsibilities given                                                               
to that program is that DOC  shall allow non-profits to come into                                                               
the facility and work with these  individuals to sign them up for                                                               
public  assistance  and  other  benefits  prior  to  release,  he                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:32:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  [referring  to   AS  43.61.010,  marijuana  taxes]                                                               
advised that  the Senate Finance  Committee inserted  a provision                                                               
into  SB 91  to ensure  that the  reinvestment priorities  of the                                                               
legislature  could be  adequately funded.   The  solution was  to                                                               
direct 50  percent of the  marijuana tax revenue  into recidivism                                                               
reduction programs.   In  making that  move, the  provision would                                                               
adequately  fund   community  based  substance   abuse  treatment                                                               
programs  in  prison,  community residential  centers,  substance                                                               
abuse   treatment    programs,   victims'    services,   violence                                                               
prevention, and  a number of other  items.  He described  this as                                                               
major  difference between  the two  provisions because  one makes                                                               
reinvestment   possible,   and   one  makes   reinvestment   more                                                               
difficult.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX related,  "Counting your  chickens before  the eggs                                                               
have hatched,"  and asked whether  it is actually known  what the                                                               
marijuana taxes will bring to the state.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING responded that the  Department of Revenue provided a                                                               
conservative projection of  bringing in $6 million  in FY17, that                                                               
amount would  double in FY18, and  the out years to  $12 million.                                                               
Therefore, he  remarked, this statutory provision,  which mirrors                                                               
what the state  does with alcohol tax revenue,  would divert one-                                                               
half of  that into  recidivism reduction.   There is  some wiggle                                                               
room  the Senate  Finance  Standing Committee  built  in, in  the                                                               
event those  projections do not come  to be true.   He reiterated                                                               
that the administration believes it is a conservative estimate.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:34:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN   asked  whether   Mr.  Shilling   said  the                                                               
projection is $6 million on the marijuana tax.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked  whether that is after  the expenses of                                                               
putting  together the  various boards,  writing regulations,  and                                                               
setting up  the whole program.   He  further asked whether  it is                                                               
gross or net income.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  answered that he did  not know how the  cost of the                                                               
board  and  writing  regulations   sits  in  with  the  projected                                                               
revenue, and he  could get back to Representative  Lynn after the                                                               
meeting.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING, in response to  Representative Lynn, agreed that it                                                               
makes a big difference.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX pointed  out  that the  Director  of the  Alcoholic                                                               
Beverage  Control  Board (ABC  Board)  and  the Director  of  the                                                               
Marijuana Control  Board is the  same person in order  to curtail                                                               
expenses.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that it  is unknown whether that is                                                               
before or after expenses.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX stated, "That is what Mr. Shilling just said."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  extended that she  would like to direct  a question                                                               
to the Department of Law.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:36:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  SKIDMORE,   Director,  Legal  Services   Section,  Criminal                                                               
Division,  Department of  Law  (DOL), said  he  was available  to                                                               
answer questions.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  for an  example of  a non-domestic  violence                                                               
assault in the fourth degree.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE explained  that assault in the fourth  degree is any                                                               
assault in  which someone is  placed in fear of  imminent serious                                                               
physical injury, or has physical  injury pain.  When the domestic                                                               
violence  (DV) restriction  is applied  there must  be a  certain                                                               
relationship between  the two people involved  in that particular                                                               
instance.    He   explained,  in  the  instance   in  which  that                                                               
relationship  does not  exist is,  by definition,  a non-domestic                                                               
violence assault.  For example,  a bar fight or neighbors getting                                                               
into an  altercation, or two  people who  do not know  each other                                                               
end up  in some sort of  assault, those do not  meet the domestic                                                               
violence  relationship.    He  described it  as  a  fairly  broad                                                               
spectrum on what it could include.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  whether both  people would  be charged  with                                                               
assault in the fourth degree, such as a bar fight.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIDMORE  advised there  are instances  in which  both parties                                                               
have been charged which is  something the Department of Law (DOL)                                                               
attempts to  avoid.   In the  event both  parties are  charged in                                                               
such  a situation  it is  generally considered  to be  more of  a                                                               
mutual  combat  scenario,  and disorderly  conduct  is  the  more                                                               
appropriate charge.   Secondly, he offered when  both parties are                                                               
charged it  is an attempt by  the police to bring  both people in                                                               
because they  had difficulty sorting  out the  primary aggressor.                                                               
In that situation, he offered,  the district attorney will review                                                               
it to determine the primary  aggressor and whether or not someone                                                               
had a defense, such as self-defense, available to them.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  said her next  question involved the  Department of                                                               
Corrections  entering  into  contracts  for  the  supervision  of                                                               
pretrial defendants.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:39:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner  Designee, Department of Corrections,                                                               
advised that  the Department of  Corrections (DOC)  currently has                                                               
authority to contract  out if it so desires, and  the language in                                                               
this provision  reads: "the  department may."   Mr.  Shilling was                                                               
correct in  his testimony  in that  the department  currently has                                                               
the authority to begin with, and a  policy call is the issue.  He                                                               
related that for the Department  of Corrections (DOC) to have the                                                               
discretion  to  do either  one  is  best,  and remarked  that  he                                                               
personally believes there is a  state interest in deciding who is                                                               
on electronic monitoring, but it is a policy call.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that concern  reported to her has involved a                                                               
person  being  out on  electronic  monitoring,  and some  of  the                                                               
private  companies are  not  there 24-7  hours/days.   She  asked                                                               
whether someone is listening to  whether or not someone has taken                                                               
off the  electronic monitor.  She  related that she had  heard of                                                               
instances  where  someone  was   supposed  to  be  on  electronic                                                               
monitoring and went  to a location they were not  allowed, and in                                                               
one case someone was murdered.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WILLIAMS  offered that  he  had  heard the  same  incidental                                                               
anecdotal  stories  regarding concerns,  of  which  he has  equal                                                               
concern, regarding  those instances  happening.  He  related that                                                               
his goal in  moving forward with the department is  to be certain                                                               
whatever is being done with  electronic monitoring that it is the                                                               
most robust program  the department has.  He said  he has control                                                               
over  it either  way,  with the  contractor,  or with  operations                                                               
himself.  He pointed out that  there is an interest in this state                                                               
having direct  oversight.  It makes  sense to him that  the state                                                               
would  have ultimate  responsibility in  running the  program and                                                               
may, in  fact, want to  have full  authority and not  contract it                                                               
out.   He noted  that it  is going  well in  some place  with the                                                               
independent contractors,  but in moving  forward he will  vet all                                                               
options to determine which works best.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:42:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked whether  he is aware  of instances  where the                                                               
private contractor simply has not been available 24-7.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. WILLIAMS  replied that  he had  only heard  them peripherally                                                               
and  he  does not  have  direct  evidence  on  those cases.    He                                                               
acknowledged that  he has not  looked into  the cases or  had his                                                               
team  investigate  them,  specifically, and  feels  uncomfortable                                                               
saying whether they are true or not.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  inquired  as  to whether  the  contract  with  DOC                                                               
requires  the independent  contractor to  have someone  available                                                               
listening for the monitor 24-7.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.   WILLIAMS   explained   he   is  not   familiar   with   the                                                               
specifications  of the  contract  and assumed  there are  certain                                                               
provisions laying out what is expected of the contractor.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:43:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director,  Board of Parole, Department of                                                               
Corrections, said he was available for questions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether he  had listened to her questions with                                                               
respect to the private contractors and electronic monitoring.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. EDWARDS  related that  it is  not his  area of  expertise and                                                               
hesitated   to  go   into  specifics   with  regard   to  private                                                               
contractors.   He said he does  know that individuals may  hire a                                                               
private  electronic monitoring  company  to  place themselves  on                                                               
electronic monitoring.  He was  uncertain whether they contracted                                                               
through DOC  because DOC utilizes  its own  electronic monitoring                                                               
program.  He  noted he was unaware of any  contracts DOC has with                                                               
private contractors  which sometimes  can be  problematic because                                                               
the Board  of Parole  does not have  specific oversight  of those                                                               
individual private agencies.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:44:5 3 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  expressed that she  was uncomfortable  with private                                                               
contractors  operating what  is definitely  a state  function and                                                               
maybe not performing in the manner they should.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  referred  to notes  on  the  spreadsheet,                                                               
which  he read:  "Pretrial does  not grant  DOC the  authority to                                                               
enter into  contracts for the supervision  of pretrial defendants                                                               
who have been released." He said  he is trying to determine which                                                               
bill  reads they  can,  and  which bill  reads  they  can't.   He                                                               
offered that he  received a note from Mr.  Shilling advising that                                                               
neither bill prohibits them from doing  it and that they have the                                                               
authority  today.   He  acknowledged  confusion  as to  what  the                                                               
different bills do  and how they differ from  one another because                                                               
it appears  as though  both bills, in  the pretrial  context, are                                                               
allowed to contract out.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WILLIAMS advised that the  department has the authority to do                                                               
it one  way or the  other, and that it  is a policy  issue around                                                               
whether or  not it  is a  good idea.   He  reiterated that  he is                                                               
uncomfortable   with  getting   into  the   area  of   electronic                                                               
monitoring  nuances,  but the  department  has  the authority  to                                                               
supervise  and contract  out.    He provided  that  the issue  is                                                               
whether or  not electronic monitoring  should be  contracted out,                                                               
and he fully hears the concerns of the committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  noted she  was reading  the explanation  that read:                                                               
"Does not grant DOC the authority to enter into ..."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:47:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING agreed  that it  is confusing.   He  explained that                                                               
under HB  205, no explicit authority  is granted to give  DOC the                                                               
ability  to contract  out.   The  department does  not need  that                                                               
explicit  authority in  statute  because they  already  can.   He                                                               
clarified  that  SB 91  went  out  of  its  way to  provide  that                                                               
explicit authority,  despite not needing  to, to make  it crystal                                                               
clear  that  private  electronic monitoring  companies  could  be                                                               
contracted  with.   In  the event  the  House Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee desires to  prohibit that type of  contracting it would                                                               
need to put that in the bill, he opined.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that SB  91 may include something it really                                                               
didn't  need to  add in  because the  department already  has the                                                               
authority to enter  into contracts.  She advised  that the policy                                                               
call for  this committee  is whether  it believes  the department                                                               
should  have the  ability to  enter into  contracts with  private                                                               
enterprises,  to  have the  oversight  of  what is  a  legitimate                                                               
governmental function,  which is probably  one of the  few things                                                               
this committee can all agree upon.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  opined  it  is DOC's  call  today  as  to                                                               
whether it sends  someone out on electronic  monitoring and count                                                               
that as prison time.  Currently,  he asked, is DOC putting people                                                               
in custody  out on pretrial  electronic monitoring and  saying it                                                               
does not want them in custody  and will move them someplace else,                                                               
and the person is on electronic monitoring.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:49:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WILLIAMS agreed, and he said  that part is currently going on                                                               
with the state.   He clarified there is a  provision for a person                                                               
eligible  for  private electronic  monitoring  to  pay a  private                                                               
contractor  and the  department is  not  involved in  any of  the                                                               
business dealing with  regard to those folks.   The contemplation                                                               
here is whether to encourage  the consideration to have the state                                                               
contract out, as can be done  currently without the language.  He                                                               
noted it  seems to encourage the  prospect of that.   In terms of                                                               
leading the  department, he said he  will do the safest  and best                                                               
thing, especially in  the arena of pretrial.  He  described it as                                                               
a large policy  call about whether or not the  department will do                                                               
it, and  the issue is  whether or not  the language is  needed in                                                               
the bill  which somewhat opens the  door a bit more  to encourage                                                               
it.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  related  that  a person  pays  a  private                                                               
electronic  monitoring  company  to electronically  monitor  them                                                               
while they are  released pretrial.  He  asked whether, currently,                                                               
the  department  is  letting  people  out  of  jail  pretrial  on                                                               
electronic monitors, for  those in the custody of  DOC who didn't                                                               
bail out.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. WILLIAMS deferred to Ms. Dagle, Department of Corrections.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:51:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHERRI  DAGLE,   Public  Information   Officer,  Office   of  the                                                               
Commissioner,   Department   of   Corrections,  said   that   the                                                               
Department of  Corrections (DOC) does not  do pretrial electronic                                                               
monitoring, that  is handled through  the Alaska Court  System as                                                               
anything pretrial does  go through a private contractor.   Once a                                                               
person is sentenced DOC can  then place that person on electronic                                                               
monitoring if they meet certain  criteria.  She remarked there is                                                               
a large  packet of information a  person must first fill  out and                                                               
they  must meet  a certain  classification score  in order  to be                                                               
released on  electronic monitoring.  The  department will closely                                                               
monitor  a person  on electronic  monitoring  for anything  post-                                                               
sentence and, she noted, only a  certain number of people are let                                                               
out.  Pretrial,  the department does not have  any authority over                                                               
that and the people are monitored by a private company.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:52:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   referred  to  post-sentence   and  asked                                                               
whether the department actually  owns the electronic monitors and                                                               
bracelets,  or post-sentence  are they  contracting with  private                                                               
entities that have the bracelets  and the technology that follows                                                               
them around.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE advised the department actually owns that equipment.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN referred  to pretrial  today and  said the                                                               
department is not involved at all.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE answered in the affirmative.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   noted  that  the   interesting  question                                                               
becomes whether  the committee wants to  authorize the department                                                               
in  the   pretrial  context  to  release   people  on  electronic                                                               
monitoring.     These  are  the  people   who  essentially  would                                                               
otherwise be in  jail because if they had gotten  out as a matter                                                               
of   bail  they   wouldn't  need   the  department's   electronic                                                               
monitoring.  The questions are  whether to allow pretrial release                                                               
from the  department and  if the committee  does allow,  does the                                                               
department have to do it  themselves, or does the committee allow                                                               
the department to pay a contractor to do the same thing.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE answered, correct.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:53:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a hypothetical  situation wherein someone is                                                               
not  out on  pretrial bail  because they  haven't been  convicted                                                               
yet.  The  question before the committee then  becomes whether to                                                               
require the Department of Corrections  to monitor these folks, or                                                               
allow  the  Department  of Corrections  to  contract  with  other                                                               
people.  She asked whether she was correct.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE replied that it is correct.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:54:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked  that that brings up  another question, and                                                               
said if the committee is  considering requiring the Department of                                                               
Corrections (DOC) to oversee the  people who can't make bail, why                                                               
should the committee say that for  all of the people who can make                                                               
bail, DOC is not involved at all.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
She opined that  some of these cases, Mr. Williams  and she heard                                                               
about, are people  on pretrial.  She asked what  it would take to                                                               
make  sure   the  department  has  oversight   over  everyone  on                                                               
electronic monitoring,  whether out on  bail or in custody.   She                                                               
asked whether Ms. Dagle understood her point.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DAGLE responded  that  she did  understand  and opined  that                                                               
anytime  someone is  allowed out  on electronic  monitoring there                                                               
will be a certain amount of risk.   She advised that the point is                                                               
to measure that risk and  what society is comfortable with, which                                                               
is a policy question.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:56:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX referred  to the interplay under this  bill and said                                                               
that for  a lot of  people bail just  isn't going to  be required                                                               
anymore.  She  pointed out that bail will be  on a different sort                                                               
of consideration because it will not  be whether a person does or                                                               
does not have money  to make bail.  She asked  how that fits into                                                               
all of this, if it does.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE  stated that she  was unsure that  it does, and  she is                                                               
not sure how to answer the question.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN opined  that  not only  are the  standards                                                               
being changed,  but one  of the  concepts of the  bill is  a risk                                                               
assessment to attempt  to have a smaller population  of people in                                                               
jail pretrial.   Under the bill there would be  a pretrial agency                                                               
to provide  a supervisory role  in pretrial release and  it would                                                               
have  some electronic  monitoring capacity.   The  judge decides,                                                               
based  on the  risk analysis,  whether a  defendant, rather  than                                                               
posting  $500, needs  to be  released  on electronic  monitoring.                                                               
The question then becomes whether DOC  will be the only agency to                                                               
provide  electronic monitoring  under the  system they  currently                                                               
have  for post-sentence  people,  or to  allow  DOC to  determine                                                               
whether it makes the most sense to hire contractors.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:58:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  voiced  that  it sounds  like  the  Department  of                                                               
Corrections  (DOC) is  not involved  at all  when defendants  are                                                               
just out on bail.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DAGLE  responded  correct,   although,  in  the  event  this                                                               
legislation passes  with the  creation of  the pretrial  unit, it                                                               
will  be the  entity  responsible for  monitoring those  released                                                               
pre-sentence.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX said the department  will be responsible, under this                                                               
bill, for everyone.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAGLE agreed.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised  it becomes the committee's  policy call as                                                               
to  whether or  not it  is  appropriate that  the department  can                                                               
contract  this  out  or  whether   the  department  needs  to  be                                                               
responsible itself.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:59:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TONY PIPER, Program Manager, Division  of Behavioral Health, said                                                               
he was available for questions.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX requested an explanation  as to how the 24/7 program                                                               
works, and how someone can be put into the 24/7 program.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PIPER explained  there is  a  real time  database where  all                                                               
information  is placed  by the  provider performing  the testing.                                                               
He explained it  will flag anyone who tries to  come in early one                                                               
day and late  another day, and it is calculated  to ensure people                                                               
are  testing consistently  every 12  hours.   Also,  he noted,  a                                                               
urinalysis test is  available that can go back and  test up to 80                                                               
hours for  alcohol if anyone missed  the test or for  some reason                                                               
it looks like they are gaming the system.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the test  will always be the same time                                                               
every day.   She remarked  that that  sounds easy for  the person                                                               
that blows at 12:00 noon, and then has a beer or martini.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PIPER  explained that the  alcohol testing should be  able to                                                               
capture anyone using alcohol during that time.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX argued that a person  blows at 12:01 p.m., takes the                                                               
test and  then goes out and  has a liquid lunch,  and unless they                                                               
get really  drunk, it should be  out of their system  by midnight                                                               
if the test is performed at the same time each time.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PIPER explained  that it  is performed  about the  same time                                                               
every day.   There are hours of operation that  gives them a two-                                                               
hour period they can come in, but  they have to be in at about 12                                                               
hour intervals.   Within  that 12  hour period  they consistently                                                               
find  that individuals  are alcohol  free.   He  noted this  24/7                                                               
program is  based upon  a research program  out of  South Dakota,                                                               
Montana, and North Dakota                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:02:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  expressed that, of  course, the people  are alcohol                                                               
free because it  doesn't take 12 hours to get  the alcohol out of                                                               
a  person's system,  unless they  have  had a  heck of  a lot  of                                                               
alcohol.  But  just a few drinks here and  there, they could have                                                               
some at lunch  and then by midnight the person  should be alcohol                                                               
free.  She asked whether she was wrong.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PIPER agreed  that it  is possible,  but the  random checks,                                                               
going back  to 80 hours,  would also catch  them and the  test is                                                               
random so the participants never know when it is coming.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:03:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX then read the  list of witnesses available to answer                                                               
questions and asked  whether the committee would  like to further                                                               
discuss the differences of the  two bills.  She advised committee                                                               
members  to   submit  any  amendments   to  Amy  they   may  want                                                               
incorporated into  SB 91  that are  not in HB  205.   She further                                                               
advised  that  those amendments  will  be  discussed, and  public                                                               
testimony will be offered, on Wednesday.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  asked for clarification as  to whether she                                                               
was considering moving the HB 205 version instead of SB 91.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX explained  that the  committee will  hear SB  91 on                                                               
Wednesday, and commented that except  for all practical purposes,                                                               
SB  91 will  actually  be HB  205.   Mr.  Shilling explained  the                                                               
differences  within the  two  bills, and  Chair  LeDoux said  she                                                               
would like  members to  determine what language  within SB  91 is                                                               
better  than the  language  within HB  205 to  be  offered as  an                                                               
amendment to HB 205.  She  explained it is easier dealing with HB                                                               
205  for  purposes of  Legislative  Legal  and Research  Services                                                               
drafting a  document into something the  committee can ultimately                                                               
move to the House Finance Committee.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[SB 91 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:06:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:06 to 2:08 p.m.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          SB 24-LEGIS. ETHICS ACT: CONTRACTORS,INTERNS                                                                      
                                                                                                                              
2:08:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
CS  FOR  SENATE  BILL  NO.  24(JUD),  "An  Act  relating  to  the                                                               
applicability  of  the  Legislative  Ethics  Act  to  legislative                                                               
interns,   legislative   volunteers,   legislative   consultants,                                                               
legislative  independent contractors,  sole proprietorships,  and                                                               
other legal entities."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:08:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BERTA GARDNER, Senator, Alaska State Legislature, advised that                                                                  
Joyce  Henderson,  outgoing   administrator  of  the  Legislative                                                               
Ethics   Committee,   realized    legislative   contractors   and                                                               
consultants  are subject  to Alaska's  entire legislative  ethics                                                               
statute.   Senator Gardner explained that  the Legislative Ethics                                                               
Committee  has never  enforced the  provision, largely,  and they                                                               
lack  the resources  to  do so.    She pointed  out  there is  no                                                               
benefit  to the  state in  requiring legislative  contractors and                                                               
consultants to  participate in the state's  ethics training, such                                                               
as discussing  how legislators can  spend their  office accounts,                                                               
what the  legislators are limited  to do with  their newsletters,                                                               
and things  of that sort.   She  used the example  of LexisNexis,                                                               
and  said that  the legislature  should not  pay the  people that                                                               
write the state's  statute books to do  this mandated legislative                                                               
ethics  training.   Therefore, a  subcommittee went  through [the                                                               
statute]  piece-by-piece and  proposed the  provisions within  SB                                                               
24, she said.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:10:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JERRY  ANDERSON, Administrator,  Select Committee  on Legislative                                                               
Ethics,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  said he  was  available  to                                                               
answer questions.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  asked  whether  this bill  is  necessary  and  his                                                               
thoughts on this legislation.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. ANDERSON  responded that  this bill is  the product  of hours                                                               
and  hours  of  work  from   the  Legislative  Ethics  Committee,                                                               
including  the  public  members of  the  committee  working  with                                                               
Senator  Gardner's  office.    In   general,  he  commented,  the                                                               
committee is supportive of this legislation.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.   After ascertaining no one                                                               
wished to testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:11:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised that he  intends to review the bill                                                               
further to determine  whether adjustments need to be  made on the                                                               
floor of the House of Representatives.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:12:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  moved  to  report CSSB  24,  Version  29-                                                               
LS0148\E, out  of committee  with individual  recommendations and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSSB                                                               
24(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:12:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
           HJR 19-CONST. AM: APPROPRIATIONS FROM CBR                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:16:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  JOINT RESOLUTION  NO. 19,  Proposing an  amendment to  the                                                               
Constitution   of   the  State   of   Alaska   relating  to   the                                                               
constitutional budget reserve fund.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:16:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LORA REINBOLD, Representative,  Alaska State Legislature, advised                                                               
that the resolution caps the  Constitutional Budget Reserve at 10                                                               
percent,  and  offers Alaskans  the  opportunity  to vote  as  to                                                               
whether they want  the draw of the  Constitutional Budget Reserve                                                               
to be capped at 10 percent a year.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  noted he  heard the  resolution in                                                               
the House  State Affairs Standing  Committee and  appreciated the                                                               
diligence of the chair of that committee.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.   After ascertaining no one                                                               
wished to testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:19:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  moved  to  report  HJR  19,  Version  29-                                                               
LS0567\W, out  of committee  with individual  recommendations and                                                               
the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being no objection, HJR 19                                                               
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:20:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 91 - CS ver Y.A (FIN).pdf HJUD 4/11/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 91
SB 91 - Policy Differences HB205 to SB 91.pdf HJUD 4/11/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 205
SB 91